On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:28 AM, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'd prefer this to be combined into fewer patches >> that each will address several issues of one type, > > I understand your concern a bit in principle. > > >> ie. put all label renames into one patch, > > Are any of my update suggestions controversial here? Well, the label renames have a little value in general IMO, but that depends on a particular case. Anyway, if there's something I don't like in particular, I'll let you know. >> all size determination improvements into another one and so on. > > I am unsure about the acceptance for the selected software change opportunities. > So I chose a very specific patch granularity intentionally. > > I tend to provide some change ideas for each affected function > implementation individually. I imagine that this way should support > the recombination of update steps to some degree already, shouldn't it? However, it's a pain to review 20 patches if you could review 4 instead. Please take the reviewers' time into consideration too. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
