From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: ACPI-APEI-HEST: Fine-tuning for three function implementations Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:21:13 +0200 Message-ID: <0b722fa0-6bb3-812f-66ce-8db3b91ed107@users.sourceforge.net> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <9834b713-2c7b-ad6d-76a5-b1db40f561fc@users.sourceforge.net> <06ab72bc-6e00-1829-f1bf-67f0a31aff38@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:54014 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756107AbcIFOVl (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2016 10:21:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org, Julia Lawall , Paolo Bonzini > Well, as I said elsewhere, if you make the same type of change in > multiple places in one piece of code (or code maintained by the same maintainer), I can imagine that my update suggestions will also trigger some additional development efforts. I assume that some contributors appreciate fine-grained patch series, don't they? > you make it easier to review those changes if they go in one patch. It might look convenient. But I find that there are more aspects to consider for a better patch granularity. Regards, Markus