From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE18C4332B for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96EEB235F7 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732050AbhATVKa (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:10:30 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52836 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2436681AbhATVB4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:01:56 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FFC7C061575 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id by1so29054219ejc.0 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:01:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=YjAUNJN3Oj78l83ee42AKihXG4Dod/ZokWIkhLHuWQM=; b=LRNB6FMKBaVXQZAzDaLPV50mCj4Zms60F58i2XTpHO9PR3bkdwZQvekqtBy7cEHIPu rxXhVY2URfGUk9bdinnVuVYL1nWBvQyHUnwcSGacoeiNqdaE9ofZCpZufju7pTnBgaI/ N635OaKeq6ENDDX+smU54+IGJuuULcT56Sdec0buSHfqrrwI2DO98ONaMHT/9/8M3kBt QEF0Eg2usBaUjB/lt4nixHxQ1HwHeMDE7+8tpLksQxbIDE8dQHbR1f3mxtSFnsyvXIeI v1pKBgxVJPkRGUAfl7sh18Z02pvA2J0Op8jAhj7Q1l8YgJmiR+X0QY7RtYNT8BDbeFPt pDDw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=YjAUNJN3Oj78l83ee42AKihXG4Dod/ZokWIkhLHuWQM=; b=FnvEmMHfax+VrPxeAuT87ZODHRegyyzU8IKoyynBfPmxa3zGfXOILk0caLmIuaVUHD bD6h4U9Hl6j8z4AHfyvF4pPYjYExUzdByQdZ9G4nlCNLOAERgwrRK86L2zPPZkSFPHQr Z97VbyWvvXJWVS9nH7a29HfclpOmBUwX/YlerTvECwPtNwrssZ9DCkMtZ0fB9TObhS+d 4yjIM63Ujy4GmGTkuXz5lYI2oAXrw3uVMbzFRd120jPXnWjJ8QpFfWdpdZ75HuOm6c18 ssLJchrv/AMoHZskrE0jr5bN1iCfuypmhHUcyWVHcQcBhzT0Ihs8rFKT/WDSFodMQiyW Fvzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533RPiEp5UmgZ8ICYyosH8FQJ4QQYxZ2ueGy3XLtmGhXQq3m1mlP 8GwpNSskc3w7bXHMrOlMOZk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQkPqkvBpyj+uQmNdU/ghsyEnRCbyDHjwGYNl2nbaN6G5+ATD5gIyA6gMWiGl28PEGjc0VgA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3fc1:: with SMTP id k1mr7558425ejj.58.1611176474782; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from skbuf (5-12-227-87.residential.rdsnet.ro. [5.12.227.87]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cx6sm1768175edb.53.2021.01.20.13.01.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:01:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:01:11 +0200 From: Vladimir Oltean To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: "David S . Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Vivien Didelot , Richard Cochran , Claudiu Manoil , Alexandru Marginean , Alexandre Belloni , Xiaoliang Yang , Hongbo Wang , Vladimir Oltean , Po Liu , Yangbo Lu , Maxim Kochetkov , Eldar Gasanov , Andrey L , UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 15/16] net: dsa: felix: setup MMIO filtering rules for PTP when using tag_8021q Message-ID: <20210120210111.mqjdhwf6sq6qthui@skbuf> References: <20210119230749.1178874-1-olteanv@gmail.com> <20210119230749.1178874-16-olteanv@gmail.com> <20210120084042.4d37dadb@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20210120173241.4jfqhsm725wqeqic@skbuf> <20210120125813.3e04e132@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210120125813.3e04e132@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:58:13PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > how bad is it to exceed the 15 patches per series limit? Do I need to > > do something about it? > > It's not a hard rule IIUC, if you have 16, 17 patches as an atomic > series which is hard to split, I'd think that's acceptable from time > to time. Especially if the patches themselves are not huge. > If you're already splitting a larger effort, keeping it < 15 is best. > In general if you can split a smaller logically contained series out > that's always preferred. The point is if the series is too large > reviewers are likely to postpone reviewing it until they can allocate > sufficiently large continuous block of time, which may be never. > It's all about efficient code review. > > At least that's my recollection / understanding. There may be more > reasons, we'd have to ask Dave. To be fair this series is abusively large even for me to read, and _is_ easy to split. In v1 I had posted just the first half, but then figured that reviewers might want to have the full picture of where I'm trying to get at. But now that the picture has been given, I'm going back to the split format. Thanks.