From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756924Ab0LIOFW (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:05:22 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:59314 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756902Ab0LIOFU (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:05:20 -0500 Message-ID: <4D00E212.9080001@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:05:06 +0100 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner CC: Guan Xuetao , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support References: <01ca01cb9783$7818c3f0$684a4bd0$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> <4D00A672.9050906@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:05:08 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- tejun