From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4971A0613 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:29:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D4F1C132; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:29:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760721C130 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:29:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us3.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 6A87D48008A; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:29:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (91.220.146.112) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:29:19 +0100 To: Aaron Conole CC: Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , "dev@dpdk.org" , Ivan Ilchenko References: <1566915962-5472-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> From: Andrew Rybchenko Message-ID: <660e1152-9ae5-8698-5e1f-bca45943cfd9@solarflare.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:29:15 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB X-Originating-IP: [91.220.146.112] X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1010-24874.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No-21.336300-8.000000-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: qsaWi0FWcYs4Q7K/HmUF53bspjK6JP6qJuDBbd4NSqQNWA0aQ3FdiCGU b2JNxi1q2RIa0u5oeaZOYuXMsEGdZb9z4PlYm1BmiS8eKdD/7uTkJIYDKPF738uSXx71bvSLVtO 0mkb0wEE+NfMMkHtdnHn08LPIYQ+CaBevM/eurMfQfyKEYQc1R0irUEQnqkg0ycmFNidOeD3Ljq rNNKG3txW+ozhHCHFaHiGEYM6sI0WeH1x0y0x/SlLFinzH90WnYwrduvUxofgELMPQNzyJS+EMl /vI3P9nM22M43riQ2rqBW43j0nGZsq+KpbekBWYSHCU59h5KrHKhROoEXUTm7jOUXWmQ3OWU9Qz Xh9MBw4HUJKL6sLeErFsPwK5NF6QBGlnQ8BLSeaXroFepnkOEUZhr4+vjv7sCeKlvyeZgAXIQDb 0WYpKtRZcel+qIYXttwisnSuaae8qWN+rkPuqzRKQNtfbAzM5iJ4iimOaq6EI9+pNO/IpuJfCHg c/kzDNvgFe9TGHMs/hhLoXIby/KBWVVkGuW6JrIj0zFI5DoJKCQxfA+iO7F6zG9MIKeG/Ghf3lQ uFtLYCbuQcHZubU2u3OpvA0OqzcWx8LczCIsNKdOp1TjDrlaRwMMtF4a3g9+ZQPGkWiBBejxYyR Ba/qJQPTK4qtAgwIAYt5KiTiutkgBwKKRHe+r2MslLiJrC3qEWj1bP8qLj4KIgzMw8Od5iRwXdd yWEI2qJehfao8kuo= X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-TMASE-Result: 10--21.336300-8.000000 X-TMASE-Version: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.5.1010-24874.003 X-MDID: 1567002566-A1ew6Kr6dKvf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/51] ethdev: change rte_eth_dev_info_get() return value to int X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 8/28/19 4:42 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: > Andrew Rybchenko writes: > >> On 8/27/19 11:47 PM, Aaron Conole wrote: >>> Andrew Rybchenko 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.