Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1467339 > unrolled thread

Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:20 +0200
    Re: Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-08-22 12:10 +0200
      Re: Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 19:10 +0200

#1467339 — Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>


On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> > Hello Greg,
> >
> > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the end
> > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk.
> >
> > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some
> > feedback from yourself too.
> >
> > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to attend to
> > at the moment, so there is no rush.
> >
> > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience.
>
> Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then
> fixed it up at the end, right?
>
> All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every
> step of the way.
>
> Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model
> works.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h


Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel
development model works.

Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking?

(1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy
the kernel development model requirements;
(2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code
implemented as shell functions;

While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go
ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell
implementation over the awk one.

Thanks.

Alexander Kapshuk.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1467523

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:14:10AM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation
> To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> > > Hello Greg,
> > >
> > > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the end
> > > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk.
> > >
> > > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some
> > > feedback from yourself too.
> > >
> > > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to attend to
> > > at the moment, so there is no rush.
> > >
> > > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience.
> >
> > Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then
> > fixed it up at the end, right?
> >
> > All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every
> > step of the way.
> >
> > Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model
> > works.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> 
> Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel
> development model works.
> 
> Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking?
> 
> (1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy
> the kernel development model requirements;
> (2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code
> implemented as shell functions;
> 
> While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go
> ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell
> implementation over the awk one.

I think 1 might be good, but do it in 3 patches:
	- add new file scripts/ver_linux.awk
	- delete scripts/ver_linux
	- rename scripts/ver_linux.awk to scripts/ver_linux

the first one people can review, the second no one cares about, and the
third you can generate with the '-M' option to git format-patch so it
shows up as nothing at all.

Yes, for one patch there will not be the script, but I think we can live
with that :)

Sound better?

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1467828

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:14:10AM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation
>> To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> > > Hello Greg,
>> > >
>> > > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the end
>> > > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk.
>> > >
>> > > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some
>> > > feedback from yourself too.
>> > >
>> > > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to attend to
>> > > at the moment, so there is no rush.
>> > >
>> > > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience.
>> >
>> > Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then
>> > fixed it up at the end, right?
>> >
>> > All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every
>> > step of the way.
>> >
>> > Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model
>> > works.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > greg k-h
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel
>> development model works.
>>
>> Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking?
>>
>> (1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy
>> the kernel development model requirements;
>> (2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code
>> implemented as shell functions;
>>
>> While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go
>> ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell
>> implementation over the awk one.
>
> I think 1 might be good, but do it in 3 patches:
>         - add new file scripts/ver_linux.awk
>         - delete scripts/ver_linux
>         - rename scripts/ver_linux.awk to scripts/ver_linux
>
> the first one people can review, the second no one cares about, and the
> third you can generate with the '-M' option to git format-patch so it
> shows up as nothing at all.
>
> Yes, for one patch there will not be the script, but I think we can live
> with that :)
>
> Sound better?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Heaps better. Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web