Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/51] ethdev: change rte_eth_dev_info_get() return value to int

[Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>]

On 8/28/19 4:42 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/27/19 11:47 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
>>> Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> It is the first patch series to get rid of void returning functions
>>>> in ethdev in accordance with deprecation notice [1].
>>> This is a huge series, and I suggest to combine some of the work, and/or
>>> break it up.
>> I can send patches for examples separately, but it will not help a lot.
>> I can squash changes in examples, but I think it is wrong since it would
>> make review harder - different maintainers and different practices to
>> handle error in different examples (and we tried to take it into account).
> Hrrm?  Not sure what you mean.

I mean that it is easier to review many small patches than one huge patch
especially when these files are maintained by different people.

> Patches should be broken up by logical change.  That way, it is easy to
> bisect and isolate what has changed.  This series, it seems like there's
> a single logical change, and that's been spread over lots of patches.

Single huge patch is worse for both bisect and review. When patch is huge
and bisect says that the patch is guilty, you still need to find out which
snippet/change is guilty.

In this particular case nothing prevents to split the patch make it easier
to review and bisect.

> I think grouping all the examples and all the app/test together, would
> make the series 14 review-able patches.  As it is, stepping through 40+
> 10-line emails is much more tedious (not to mention needing to apply
> them, check each for build, etc).

Yes, less build cycles are required for smaller number of patches, but
anyway automation does (should do) it. So, not that important.

I disagree that it is easier to review one huge patch. Sorry.
I think it is important here that different examples are maintained
by different people. Anyway if more reviewers will support the idea
to squash examples into once patch, technically it is trial to do.

>> Other ideas?
>>
>>> Additionally, this patch breaks the ring_pmd_autotest unit test, but I
>>> didn't bisect it to find out where.
>> Many thanks, we'll take a look.
> This is actually what I'm more concerned about anyway.  Please do
> address this.