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 D3ECFA0613 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:42:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AB71C1F7; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:42:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A18A1C1F3 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:42:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FCE21893FB1; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:42:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (unknown [10.18.25.8]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DBE55C1D6; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:42:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Andrew Rybchenko Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Ferruh Yigit , "dev\@dpdk.org" , Ivan Ilchenko References: <1566915962-5472-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:42:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Andrew Rybchenko's message of "Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:02:26 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.70]); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:42:27 +0000 (UTC) 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" 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. 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. 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). > 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.