Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] ethdev: cosmetic fixes for just moved structures

[Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>]

On 10/20/21 1:20 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 20/10/2021 00:05, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 10/19/2021 7:07 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 10/19/21 2:55 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2021 9:36 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>> Sicne rte_eth_dev and rte_eth_dev_data structures are just moved
>>>>> right now is a good chance to make a cleanup.
>>>>>
>>>>> No strong opinion, but I think it would be useful for the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make be at least some fixes from below could be accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Rybchenko (5):
>>>>>    ethdev: avoid documentation in next lines
>>>>>    ethdev: fix Rx/Tx spelling in just moved structures
>>>>>    ethdev: remove reserved fields from internal structures
>>>>>    ethdev: make device and data structures readable
>>>>>    ethdev: remove full stop after short comments and references
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Overall +1 to these changes, I think this release is the opportunity
>>>> to have changes like this.
>>>>
>>>> But as far as I can see only new moved code updated in 'ethdev_driver.h',
>>>> why not update whole 'ethdev_driver.h'?
>>>
>>> Simply don't want to complicate search by git blame because of cosmetic
>>> changes. No strong opinion, but decided to go this way for now.
>>
>> Normally agree to NOT get cosmetic changes because the reason you mentioned,
>> noise in the git history. But in this release we already shuffled things a bit,
>> that is why I think it is good opportunity to get these kind of changes.
>>
>> Also there will be some inconsistencies in 'ethdev_driver.h' after your changes,
>> like 'RX' -> 'Rx' change done in one patch, but half of the file still uses 'RX'.
>>
>> I also don't have strong opinion, but my preference is either fix all, or none.
>> Lets get some more comments.
> 
> OK to fix all, given ethdev is already shuffled a lot.
> 

I've made the next step. See v2. Let me know if it is OK, too
much or insufficient.