|To:||"Yegoshin, Leonid" <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH v2] Add MIPS64R2 core support.|
|From:||Sergei Shtylyov <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Fri, 11 May 2012 22:05:29 +0400|
|Cc:||"Hill, Steven" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>|
|References:||<firstname.lastname@example.org>,<4FAD4B9E.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<4FAD4E5C.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1|
Hello. On 05/11/2012 09:45 PM, Yegoshin, Leonid wrote:
I don't see any advantage in separation of it.
I do. And I certainly do see an advantage of bothering to describe your changes, not just throwing in patch with unclear summary, no changelog at all, doing 3 things at once and then hoping for it to be silently accepted.
Sergei Shtylyov<email@example.com> wrote:
On 05/11/2012 09:32 PM, Yegoshin, Leonid wrote:
Not exactly - it adds 64R2 support in Malta, plus small verification that build kernel could run 32bit binaries.
I don't think it has sense to multiply patches here, there is no sense to have this separated.
5KEc is just test-bed.
Well, rule of thumb is do one thing per patch. You do three. All that without proper description.
PS: Please stop top-posting. WBR, Sergei
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH v2] Add MIPS64R2 core support., Yegoshin, Leonid|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH v2,04/10] MIPS: Add micro-assembler support for 'ins' and 'ext' instructions., David Daney|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH v2] Add MIPS64R2 core support., Yegoshin, Leonid|
|Next by Thread:||RE: [PATCH v2] Add MIPS64R2 core support., Hill, Steven|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|