[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D00E212.9080001@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:05:06 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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
On 12/09/2010 02:49 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> * 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.
Sure, but at least it shouldn't introduce build scripts first which
wouldn't work at all.
>> * 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.
Cut the crap. A single patch may not be perfect for reviewing but
archs are often merged as a single giant patch as bisection is
meaningless anyway.
--
tejun
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists