Re: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support

Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-09T14:20:34Z

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