On Thursday 09 December 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Crap. a single patch is a major PITA for review. It's even worse than > 211 per file patches. It doesn't matter which way is worse than the other. Both are impractical for people to look at and not helpful. > 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. Agreed. One important step is to send patches that touch existing architecture independent code separately from new files that depend on the changes. In some cases, it's also useful to send out less than the complete set of patches at a time, but only if it is possible to understand the patches that did get sent by themselves. For instance, don't send a device driver implementation but not the header files that defines the user interface and the hardware registers. My personal upper bound would be on the order of ten large patches or (alternatively) twenty small patches. The size of the individual mails often varies a lot and that's fine. A patch containing 100kb of register definitions may be easier to review than a one-line change in an important place. Arnd -- 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
