From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] app/proc-info: improve debug of
	proc-info tool
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 22:33:26 +0100
Message-ID: <1797411.vFYqA0X0Ny@xps>
References: <20181203055000.39012-2-vipin.varghese@intel.com>
 <1651608.RmD6NkZceM@xps>
 <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2DF1A4@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "Pattan, Reshma" <reshma.pattan@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>, "Mcnamara,
 John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, "Byrne, Stephen1" <stephen1.byrne@intel.com>,
 "Patel, Amol" <amol.patel@intel.com>
To: "Varghese, Vipin" <vipin.varghese@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [64.147.123.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2202674
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 22:33:48 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2DF1A4@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

26/12/2018 06:21, Varghese, Vipin:
> HI Thomas,
> 
> Snipped
> 
> > > > Small nits
> > > > 9th patch in this set is doc. So above info need to be corrected.
> > > > if you are addressing my earlier comment of separating out mempool
> > > > element iteration changes in to separate new patch 9/10 .Please keep
> > > > my ack in next version
> > >
> > > Thanks for pointing this out, Like updated in email and chat I am not
> > planning to split it. Hence no version 8.
> > 
> > So, no ack and no merge?
> > 
> > Looking at the first patches + doc patch, the split is not meaningful.
> > You should merge doc and option parsing in the related patches.
> > For instance, parsing and doc of "tm" option should be in the "tm" patch.
> 
> I did not follow you request. Are you stating, for each functionality I should be updating document rather than 1 document update after adding the new functions? If former is true I am not able to find such reasoning stated in guideline or documentation or from the maintainer. 

Yes, you should update the doc while adding a new feature.
But most importantly, there is no reason to do a patch adding some empty functions
and filling them later.
And please consider the option parsing is part of the feature.