Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 3 Apr 2021 19:28:59 +0200
From:   Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@gmail.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
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: <cover.1617440833.git.fabioaiuto83@gmail.com>
 <1cd79d781cdcccf621ce8e104a9cdf1e90e7f803.camel@perches.com>
 <20210403152143.GA1403@agape.jhs>
 <7120836b08b680d54c15fd89b8630ccc67a53116.camel@perches.com>
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)
Precedence: bulk

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