From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: perf: Clean up perf_event cpu code
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:35:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1314704115.2799.12.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1314703291-3080-1-git-send-email-kjwinchester@gmail.com>
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 08:21 -0300, Kevin Winchester wrote:
>
> This is the first time I've attempted a patch this large. Should I break it up
> into smaller pieces?
Only if it makes sens, intermediate stages should still compile. I could
imagine you creating the header file and moving stuff in there one thing
at a time while keeping the whole thing compiling. Eventually resulting
in the state where the #include hackery is superfluous and can be
removed.
If its worth spending a lot of time making that happen is another thing.
> Or does that requirement not really apply since it's just
> a cleanup patch?
Cleanup isn't the criteria. The individual steps have to make sense.
Take for instance the uprobe patch set as an example of how not to split
up things. The individual patches don't really stand on their own and
you're constantly forced to switch back and forth while reviewing, a
total pain.
> Also, it is based on Linus' tree, should I base it on tip instead?
Yes please. I don't think they differ a lot but tip is where it'll end
up being applied to, so it helps if it does indeed apply ;-)
Otherwise looks good, thanks a bunch!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-30 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-15 23:40 warning: ‘x86_get_event_constraints’ defined but not used Kevin Winchester
2011-08-23 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-23 13:31 ` Kevin Winchester
2011-08-30 11:21 ` [RFC PATCH] x86: perf: Clean up perf_event cpu code Kevin Winchester
2011-08-30 11:35 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-08-30 23:41 ` [PATCH] " Kevin Winchester
2011-09-02 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-19 10:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1314704115.2799.12.camel@twins \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kjwinchester@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.