Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] i40evf: support to report pf reset event

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 10:59:56AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-03-09 14:00, Jingjing Wu:
> > When Linux PF and DPDK VF are used for i40e PMD, In case of PF reset,
> > interrupt will go via adminq event, VF need be informed the event,
> > a callback mechanism is introduced by VF. This will allow VF to
> > invoke callback when reset happens.
> > Users can register a callback for this interrupt event like:
> >   rte_eth_dev_callback_register(portid,
> > 		RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RESET,
> > 		reset_event_callback,
> > 		arg);
> [...]
> > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_04.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_04.rst
> > @@ -105,6 +105,8 @@ This section should contain new features added in this release. Sample format:
> >    be down.
> >    We added the support of auto-neg by SW to avoid this link down issue.
> >  
> > +* **Added pf reset event reported in i40e vf PMD driver.
> 
> Bruce, is this comment clear enough for an user?
> 
> Beware of the wrong formating (missing **)

It's pretty ok, though I might word it a little differently myself. "reported"
should be "reporting".

Your question, though, does bring up the issue of scope and reviews again. I, as
committer, spend a lot of time tweaking commit messages, sanity checking
patches for compilation errors under various settings, and running checkpatch
etc. before applying them. However, IMHO it is up to the maintainers of the
various subsystems to enforce proper documentation in the patches submitted.
The maintainers are the primary gatekeepers here, and I, for one, don't want to
end up having to review all patches in detail before I apply them - otherwise
we'll be limited to a very small number of driver patches per release :)

In this case, if the submitter of the patch and the maintainer of the driver in
question are happy with the documentation, then who am I to go querying that. :-)

Having committers do full review on apply will only have two possible effects:
1. make the maintainers less conscientious about their job, since they know the
  committers will catch any real bugs or issues on apply
2. cause a lot of problems for submitters as they see a lot of issues being
  flagged at the last minute by committers, when they thought their patch was
  safely acked and ready for commit for some time.

We certainly see lots of the second issue occurring right now, I believe - [I'm
obvously not going to comment on the former :-)]

I'd be very much in favour of having a rule that once a patch is acked by a
maintainer, then it must be applied. We may suffer a bit from slightly lower
quality patches getting applied, but the speed of applying patches should
increase, and the patch contents can always be fixed by subsequent patches later.
[Unlike commit message which can't be fixed later without rewriting git history]
In this case, I feel that phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good" applies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good

Just my 2c on this. I'm sure you have a different view, Thomas, so it's probably
a discussion worth having.

/Bruce