On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 08:02:49AM +0700, Ivan Safonov wrote: > On 10/10/2015 02:20 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:12:44PM -0700, Anish Kumar wrote: > >> > >>>On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Ivan Safonov <insafonov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>Hi! > >>> > >>>I have a large patch in the 2000 lines, which replaces the macro BITn to > >>>BIT(n) in multiple files. > >>I will recommend sending RFC patch first and > >>Get the community comments. > >No, we just ignore RFC patches, we have too many "real" patches to deal > >with. > > > >>If they like your patch then divide the patch based on logic rather than lines of codes. > >>>Is it worth to split this patch into several parts? > >Yes. > > > >>>Is it sufficient to place the changes in each file in a separate part of > >>>patchset? > >Make it one-patch-per-driver. > > > >But note, cleanup patches like this are usually ignored by most > >subsystems, be aware that this type of thing is only usually accepted in > >the drivers/staging/ portion of the kernel. > > > >good luck! > > > >greg k-h > > The catch is that this patch is only to one driver. You know, providing specifics is always nice when asking questions... If it's just one driver, and you think the patch is correct, just send it in as normal, in one patch, as it should be "easy" to understand. But again, remember that these types of "cleanups" are not always appreciated for some portions of the kernel (again, you were not specific so I can't be specific back...) greg k-h _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
