From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f53.google.com (mail-wr1-f53.google.com [209.85.221.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D24DD259E for ; Sat, 3 Apr 2021 17:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f53.google.com with SMTP id f6so1201164wrv.12 for ; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 10:29:03 -0700 (PDT) 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:user-agent; bh=Q/pPAPgGU/W0eWYpvJgPXIzYE99umLz25OGAt5xbxQs=; b=JKAfyacofh+Xq2PWnCyWh3n6Y17IR6zk01mfjIMKD+KF2E6SEEZQMEo5j7jgdcAhCk PVKkSQB17FJXRn+XPUR3CCBZre+UQV57MqLXs+rkgSrqvzy0h7h9xKKU3uuI1xVeQQRD 4MyBVgQdSUrDJKePvoNx6/MyeUJpigWzmFBiU0SqDydED1Yp7AEIuqW/KpA9sPuF+iw5 eBh61eClcOLZmGVrGeUq4GQLXZO/aLhL5y7vpOA9d+SZMKLMP5+GpX4I+3zeOzzmRPFJ jncd0drftERauuGyOKamg2Ah31A7PBaLW3VSvtt4xkLUICX3C9D+pznFbxXuLYBzBYPc 1d+A== 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:user-agent; bh=Q/pPAPgGU/W0eWYpvJgPXIzYE99umLz25OGAt5xbxQs=; b=LJX03RurVLWg2Sz5kgYQP001RkWDrH/fXFEnmUpGCp3jKPDIe+mdJfm5UTvxYyFP5O Ve9Azi92kFUq4GuiRMmLPxxtweyshQW44oQ6griUk1mEVEyNFyh/iDnu6uufFu18f/bI jS/SKRnQTuKcqTrQFdHgO6JzXc7sRcVi5ScCQKq3VlhR6a33b0f/xY84L+GuTCBeDnxg kBRHHJ0zevPVqN2U5NGA57M3QkqnlyN+3upeY3DbTKLveFyqxY93UJ1U2/5KFhi9Qlth b330f2IPtrq+GQJQrrKViQUqSQGn/m/5o+ITbrItW+nKMiCtfxg0LwQhn8u+vx1vXQEj br2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533baTnpFCmy8onuI3cZdaA0vTMRV1k8uiUwVSnD9l4f6W6nXn0N WYPD0Fc3d1dc7bStU633EiU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRH/CHvAviZMtvw61sFhJd5FLUaPL92VP/IlkksWvp8fHGVgigRE7F9tOZMTJXyIOM6Kt/bg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4884:: with SMTP id g4mr20849042wrq.191.1617470942295; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agape.jhs ([5.171.80.207]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a131sm17258422wmc.48.2021.04.03.10.29.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 03 Apr 2021 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 19:28:59 +0200 From: Fabio Aiuto To: Joe Perches Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/30] staging: rtl8723bs: remove RT_TRACE logs in core/* Message-ID: <20210403172858.GA2397@agape.jhs> References: <1cd79d781cdcccf621ce8e104a9cdf1e90e7f803.camel@perches.com> <20210403152143.GA1403@agape.jhs> <7120836b08b680d54c15fd89b8630ccc67a53116.camel@perches.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7120836b08b680d54c15fd89b8630ccc67a53116.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:17:37AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 17:21 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:02:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 11:13 +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote: > > > > This patchset removes all RT_TRACE usages in core/ files. > > > > > > and hal and include and os_dep > > > > Hi, > > > > I was just about to send the second patchset relative to hal/ files. > > The whole has been split up in directories in order to reduce the > > number of patch per patchset > > > It's a good idea, but the patches relative to RT_TRACE removal > > could be huge > > That's really not a significant issue. > Simplicity in review is also important. > Mechanization of patch creation can reduce review efforts. Maybe I wrongly associated simplicity with patch dimensions, but maybe for patches this simple have expert reviewers some tool for automatic review? Is automatic review possible? > > Few people are actively working on this particular codebase. > As far as I can tell no logical defect is being corrected here. > None of this is likely to be backported. > > Applying each individual patch has a 'cost' in maintainer time > and review effort. got it > > Fewer patches create lower overall costs. > > Good luck... > I like your idea, and sure I will work in that direction, for this particular case I wait maintainer's opinion. If patchsets will be rejected again I will apply the scheme you proposed, if it will be accepted I will apply the scheme for next patchsets. Thank you, fabio