From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934509AbcIFLVZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:21:25 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:37542 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933538AbcIFLVV (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:21:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3e0cdc5b-fd15-515a-82f2-2f44792664ed@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <897ebf36-2fe5-e109-adf6-b81b6e863d9a@users.sourceforge.net>
 <CAJZ5v0hug9QfZHQosCFFXEcFMsDd=YvXkqMmQya3RSqmOnY4dg@mail.gmail.com> <3e0cdc5b-fd15-515a-82f2-2f44792664ed@users.sourceforge.net>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:21:18 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: eonTE84_zi4sy0Qm8ooCojnJw50
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gWgxbtJ4m0eDkdOaR_usjTqmcWBWds5qprr+ydHhEjnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ACPI-video: Fine-tuning for several function implementations
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:28 AM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> I'd prefer this to be combined into fewer patches
>> that each will address several issues of one type,
>
> I understand your concern a bit in principle.
>
>
>> ie. put all label renames into one patch,
>
> Are any of my update suggestions controversial here?

Well, the label renames have a little value in general IMO, but that
depends on a particular case.

Anyway, if there's something I don't like in particular, I'll let you know.

>> all size determination improvements into another one and so on.
>
> I am unsure about the acceptance for the selected software change opportunities.
> So I chose a very specific patch granularity intentionally.
>
> I tend to provide some change ideas for each affected function
> implementation individually. I imagine that this way should support
> the recombination of update steps to some degree already, shouldn't it?

However, it's a pain to review 20 patches if you could review 4 instead.

Please take the reviewers' time into consideration too.

Thanks,
Rafael