From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A79C433E0 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1482622B40 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2405034AbhAROpp (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:45:45 -0500 Received: from so254-31.mailgun.net ([198.61.254.31]:13128 "EHLO so254-31.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405165AbhAROpR (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:45:17 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1610981096; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Date: References: Subject: Cc: To: From: Sender; bh=3s3dtJucqmYafxFaC5tc9//4H1bRSXsj8hTO4ympo68=; b=uNeQHSdIJ9PXX2RIntnnu8mlN6OD1l1dHlDLkERJdTbEsooiNkTH8YDRiGnDxUgWPcKUruU6 9XFlBBgPBflmDYoGQEbJ042l9FVaWKiCvssCBwmVgEVgFBWdxyznAL4pVGuNnnX0NF9Nlkfn sT+wdKEQ2HM0eQTBfyMICRcisI0= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 198.61.254.31 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI3YTAwOSIsICJsaW51eC13aXJlbGVzc0B2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmciLCAiYmU5ZTRhIl0= Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n06.prod.us-east-1.postgun.com with SMTP id 60059ecaba7f868506fae709 (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:44:26 GMT Sender: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3D725C43464; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from potku.adurom.net (88-114-240-156.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.240.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7660AC433CA; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:44:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 7660AC433CA Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Pkshih Cc: "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" , "tony0620emma\@gmail.com" , Bernie Huang Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 0/8] rtw88: improve TX performance in field References: <20210114010950.3316-1-pkshih@realtek.com> <874kjkrnje.fsf@codeaurora.org> <1610673434.2741.20.camel@realtek.com> <87zh1ar60n.fsf@codeaurora.org> <1610698027.2741.26.camel@realtek.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:44:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1610698027.2741.26.camel@realtek.com> (pkshih@realtek.com's message of "Fri, 15 Jan 2021 08:07:43 +0000") Message-ID: <87a6t6gv96.fsf@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Pkshih writes: > On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 09:52 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Pkshih writes: >>=20 >> > To avoid frequently submitting patches results from exceeding patch si= ze >> 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 patch= es >> > 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 patc= hes? >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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: >>=20 >> * move the patch as the last patch in the patchset >>=20 >> * the huge patch should only have changes to parameter variables, ie. >> =C2=A0 refactor changes to the actual code to a separate patch >>=20 >> * add kvalo@codeaurora.org to CC >>=20 >> * add a big warning to the cover letter (or reply afterwards) so that I >> =C2=A0 notice the huge patch is missing from patchwork >>=20 >> Would this work? >>=20 > > 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. --=20 https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatc= hes