[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160818104122.64265424@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:41:22 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:31:36 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 03:39:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Josh Poimboeuf (57):
> > >
> > > I am personally unable to review a 57 patches series.
> > >
> > > Any chance you could split it into self-contained steps? In general doing so
> > > increase the chances for reviews, accelerate merging, improve maintainance...
> >
> > Yes, please!
> >
> > Series of no more than 4-6 patches, ordered in a logical fasion from lowest risk /
> > simplest towards highest risk / most complex.
>
> You're right, that would be better. My apologies for spamming. It
> started with "only" 19 patches in v1 and then quickly got out of hand.
>
> I may split it up something like this:
This looks fine. My wife came down to complain to me that my tablet was
"popping" too much. (it pops for every email I get).
But don't send these all at once. Send one series out and focus on
that, then when that is all set, then work on the next series.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists