From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Varghese, Vipin" <vipin.varghese@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] app/proc-info: improve debug of
 proc-info tool
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 02:46:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2DF4B6@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
References: <20181203055000.39012-2-vipin.varghese@intel.com>
 <1651608.RmD6NkZceM@xps>
 <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2DF1A4@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
 <1797411.vFYqA0X0Ny@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEF12C6A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Dec 2018 03:46:55 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <1797411.vFYqA0X0Ny@xps>
Content-Language: en-US
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>

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" pa=
tch.
> >
> > 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.
>=20
> Yes, you should update the doc while adding a new feature.
Ok, I will comply to your requirement even though it is not in 'guideline, =
documentation or from maintainer'. Humbly requesting to update documentatio=
n and guideline suggesting the same. This will also help others to submit p=
atches according the new guideline. Once reflected it will be justified for=
 sending a v8.

> But most importantly, there is no reason to do a patch adding some empty
> functions and filling them later.
Following are the reasons for using stub function from v1 onwards till v7
1. Without the dummy function there are compiler warnings for unused variab=
les.
2. It is logical to have stub functions for the new parse option being adde=
d in one go.

These are based on the suggestion from the maintainer.

> And please consider the option parsing is part of the feature.
As mentioned above please find the reasoning stated for patches from v1 to =
v7.