From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: ACPI-video: Fine-tuning for several function implementations Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:10:22 +0200 Message-ID: <6882cbb1-3f61-fb64-2972-30c277f28580@users.sourceforge.net> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <897ebf36-2fe5-e109-adf6-b81b6e863d9a@users.sourceforge.net> <3e0cdc5b-fd15-515a-82f2-2f44792664ed@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 ([212.227.17.11]:61346 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756015AbcIFOLE (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2016 10:11:04 -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, Hans de Goede , Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Zhang Rui , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall , Paolo Bonzini > Anyway, if there's something I don't like in particular, I'll let you know. Thanks for your general interest. I hope that occasional disagreements can be resolved in constructive ways. > However, it's a pain to review 20 patches if you could review 4 instead. Are there any more possibilities to improve the convenience for this change review process with advanced tools? > Please take the reviewers' time into consideration too. I am trying this to some degree. But I guess that it is hard to do something about corresponding efforts when various contributors can easily spot many software update opportunities in the discussed source files, isn't it? Regards, Markus