On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 13:27, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > > The obvious answer is "you might have got your manual tweaking > > wrong". A purely mechanised patch I can review by looking at > > the script and maybe eyeballing a few instances of the change; > > a change that is 99% mechanised and 1% hand-written I need to > > run through to find the hand-written parts. > > Define "handwritten" :) > > If reverting unwanted line-breaks and blank lines counts, then I can > make two patches, one straight from Coccinelle, and one that reverts the > unwanted crap. The first one will be larger and more annoying to review > than this one. A clear loss in my book, but I'm the patch submitter, > not a patch reviewer, so my book doesn't matter. > > Else, we're down to one file, which I already offered to split off. > > > But mostly this patch is hard to review for its sheer size, > > mechanical changes or not. A 3000 line patchmail is so big that > > the UI on my mail client gets pretty unwieldy. > > With the manual one split off, target/xtensa/ dropped as requested by > Max, and tests/tcg/mips/ dropped because its status is unclear (and I > start to find it hard to care), we're down to > > 28 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 221 deletions(-)
Yes, this is much better and "I hand tweaked these things" is reasonable in a patch that big. It's the combination of the ginormous multi-thousand-line patch and the hand tweaking that was the really awkward part. thanks -- PMM
