Re: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:

> 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.

It's not a question of merging. It's a question of reviewing and I've
done quite a bunch of reviews on new archs, so I know what I'm talking
about. Reviewing a single patch with everything and the world included
is just not workable.

Thanks,

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