Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 0/8] rtw88: improve TX performance in field

[Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

On Mon, 2021-01-18 at 14:44 +0000, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 09:52 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > To avoid frequently submitting patches results from exceeding patch size
> >> limit.
> >> > I'd like to know the patch size limit accepted by patchwork.
> >> > As I know, the limit is about 512k, so it is expected that below patches
> >> > don't appear in patchwork
> >> > 1. patch 5/5 of v1 (978K)
> >> > 2. patch 6/7 of v2 (532K)
> >> >
> >> > But, I don't know why the table file (patch 16/18) of rtw89 whose size is
> >> > 772k can appear in patchwork. Does patchwork have different limits of
> >> > existing and new file? Moreover, if new file exceeds the limit someday,
> >> > how can I deal with it? Can I split the new file into two or more
> patches?
> >> 
> >> I suspect the mailing list limits the size, not patchwork. I did
> >> directly get "[PATCH 5/5] rtw88: 8822c: update phy parameter tables to
> >> v60" (Message-ID 20210113092312.13809-6-pkshih@realtek.com) as you added
> >> me to CC. But I don't see it in lore, which points that linux-wireless
> >> dropped it.
> >> 
> >> Normally these huge patches would not be applied being to big, but
> >> updating parameter tables is a good exception to the rule and I can
> >> commit those manually directly from my INBOX. So for huge patches I
> >> recommend:
> >> 
> >> * move the patch as the last patch in the patchset
> >> 
> >> * the huge patch should only have changes to parameter variables, ie.
> >>   refactor changes to the actual code to a separate patch
> >> 
> >> * add kvalo@codeaurora.org to CC
> >> 
> >> * add a big warning to the cover letter (or reply afterwards) so that I
> >>   notice the huge patch is missing from patchwork
> >> 
> >> Would this work?
> >> 
> >
> > Yes, it works. Many thanks.
> >
> > I would like to know if it is accepted to split the big one into two or
> > more patches, like my v3? Or, I should recall v1 style when I submit v4?
> 
> For me splitting the patch into smaller patches (which are visible in
> patchwork) is easier as then I don't need to do any manual work. When
> splitting patches just make sure that the requirement of every patch
> compiling without warnings is fulfilled.
> 

OK. Thanks for your patience to answer my questions.

--
Ping-Ke