linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:49:30 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Guan Xuetao <guanxuetao@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support

B1;2401;0cOn Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 12/09/2010 10:28 AM, Guan Xuetao wrote:
> > From: Guan Xuetao <guanxuetao@...c.pku.edu.cn>
> > 
> > These patches add support for UniCore-32 ISA in linux kernel.
> > UniCore ISA is defined and developed by Micro-Processor R&D Center of
> > Peking University, and over the years, the CPUs and SoCs using UniCore ISA
> > have been successfully applied in a variety of products in China.
> 
> * Patches should be split according to logical steps of changes, not
>   per-file.
> 
> * Patches should be bisectable.  IOW, after applying upto any patch in
>   the series, the tree should be buildable and working.

That does not work for a new architecture. There is nothing to bisect.
  
> * When posting a patch series, especially one as large as 211, please
>   make the mails for the actual patches replies to the head message.
>   Don't post it as 212 separate messages or replies to the immediate
>   previous patch.
> 
> So, in short, if you're adding a whole new arch, just post it as a
> single patch or a series of several patches if it requires changes
> outside of the specific arch subtree.

Crap. a single patch is a major PITA for review. It's even worse than
211 per file patches.

It's ok to have several patches ordered by topics

  - generic header stuff
  - processor and system headers
  - low level entry and setup code
  - process/thread related code
  - mm related code
  - timers
  - interrupts
  - ptrace
  - signals
  - fault handling
  - misc
  - build system, main makefile, Kconfig

That makes it actually feasible to review.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/