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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
