Re: ACPI-video: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:28 AM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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