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
