RE: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support

Guan Xuetao
2010-12-10T08:56:34Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-arch-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Gleixner
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 9:50 PM
> To: Tejun Heo
> Cc: Guan Xuetao; Arnd Bergmann; linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support
>
> B1;2401;0cOn Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On 12/09/2010 10:28 AM, Guan Xuetao wrote:
> > > From: Guan Xuetao <guanxuetao@mprc.pku.edu.cn>
> > >
> > > These patches add support for UniCore-32 ISA in linux kernel.
> > > UniCore ISA is defined and developed by Micro-Processor R&D Center
> > > of Peking University, and over the years, the CPUs and SoCs using
> > > UniCore ISA have been successfully applied in a variety of products in
> China.
> >
> > * 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.
>
> > * 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.
>
> It's ok to have several patches ordered by topics
>
> - generic header stuff
> - processor and system headers
> - low level entry and setup code
> - process/thread related code
> - mm related code
> - timers
> - interrupts
> - ptrace
> - signals
> - fault handling
> - misc
> - build system, main makefile, Kconfig
>
> That makes it actually feasible to review.
Thanks,
I will rearrange my patches.

Guan Xuetao