On Mon, 2021-01-18 at 14:44 +0000, Kalle Valo wrote: > Pkshih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 09:52 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Pkshih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > To avoid frequently submitting patches results from exceeding patch size > >> limit. > >> > I'd like to know the patch size limit accepted by patchwork. > >> > As I know, the limit is about 512k, so it is expected that below patches > >> > don't appear in patchwork > >> > 1. patch 5/5 of v1 (978K) > >> > 2. patch 6/7 of v2 (532K) > >> > > >> > But, I don't know why the table file (patch 16/18) of rtw89 whose size is > >> > 772k can appear in patchwork. Does patchwork have different limits of > >> > existing and new file? Moreover, if new file exceeds the limit someday, > >> > how can I deal with it? Can I split the new file into two or more > patches? > >> > >> I suspect the mailing list limits the size, not patchwork. I did > >> directly get "[PATCH 5/5] rtw88: 8822c: update phy parameter tables to > >> v60" (Message-ID 20210113092312.13809-6-pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx) as you added > >> me to CC. But I don't see it in lore, which points that linux-wireless > >> dropped it. > >> > >> Normally these huge patches would not be applied being to big, but > >> updating parameter tables is a good exception to the rule and I can > >> commit those manually directly from my INBOX. So for huge patches I > >> recommend: > >> > >> * move the patch as the last patch in the patchset > >> > >> * the huge patch should only have changes to parameter variables, ie. > >> refactor changes to the actual code to a separate patch > >> > >> * add kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx to CC > >> > >> * add a big warning to the cover letter (or reply afterwards) so that I > >> notice the huge patch is missing from patchwork > >> > >> Would this work? > >> > > > > Yes, it works. Many thanks. > > > > I would like to know if it is accepted to split the big one into two or > > more patches, like my v3? Or, I should recall v1 style when I submit v4? > > For me splitting the patch into smaller patches (which are visible in > patchwork) is easier as then I don't need to do any manual work. When > splitting patches just make sure that the requirement of every patch > compiling without warnings is fulfilled. > OK. Thanks for your patience to answer my questions. -- Ping-Ke
