On 2018年05月10日 19:45, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 09:43:09AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2018年05月09日 01:45, David Sterba wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 02:16:59PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>> Current btrfs-check will check qgroup consistency, but even when it >>>> finds something wrong, the return value is still 0. >>>> >>>> Fix it by allowing report_qgroups() to return int to indicate qgroup >>>> mismatch, and also add extra logical to return no error if qgroup repair >>>> is successful. >>>> >>>> Without this patch, fstests can't detect qgroup corruption by its fsck >>>> alone. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Applied, thanks. Please send the 0/N (cover letter) mail even for >>> 2-patch series. >> >> Any advice on the necessity of the cover letter? >> >> Is cover letter highly recommended for any patches which have any >> dependency like the 2nd test case? > > The cover letter is a place where you can get feedback on the whole > patchset, individual patches get the specific comments to the code. > > A patchset makes a logical chunk of patches so the cover letter also > serves as the high-level overview of the changes before I or others even > start looking further. > > I've seen other maintainers to prefer cover letters, but as this is not > documented and not generally appreciated by developers, it needs to be > stated. Developers who post patches frequently could help to improve the > patch flow process, but lack of cover letter is not a big deal > otherwise. Much appreciated about the explain on this topic. Personally I'm completely fine for cover letters, so I would take this method for later logically related patches. Thanks, Qu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
