Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:49:30 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | 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,
tglx
| |