From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Varghese, Vipin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] app/proc-info: improve debug of proc-info tool Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 10:45:19 +0000 Message-ID: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2DF60D@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <20181203055000.39012-2-vipin.varghese@intel.com> <1797411.vFYqA0X0Ny@xps> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2DF4B6@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> <2267916.URmIPQfXIM@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Pattan, Reshma" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Byrne, Stephen1" , "Patel, Amol" To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3E42C23 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:45:24 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <2267916.URmIPQfXIM@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 3:03 PM > To: Varghese, Vipin > Cc: Pattan, Reshma ; dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, > Konstantin ; stephen@networkplumber.org; > Mcnamara, John ; Byrne, Stephen1 > ; Patel, Amol > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/9] app/proc-info: improve debug of pr= oc- > info tool >=20 > 27/12/2018 03:46, Varghese, Vipin: > > snipped > > > > > > > Small nits > > > > > > > 9th patch in this set is doc. So above info need to be correc= ted. > > > > > > > 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 meanin= gful. > > > > > 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. > > Ok, I will comply to your requirement even though it is not in 'guideli= ne, > documentation or from maintainer'. Humbly requesting to update > documentation and guideline suggesting the same. This will also help othe= rs > to submit patches according the new guideline. Once reflected it will be > justified for sending a v8. >=20 > Vipin, please read the doc carefully: > http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=3D9e0e4a00df775 Thank you Thomas for this update, I will make the changes for v8 and wait f= or your ACK. >=20 > > > 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 > variables. > > 2. It is logical to have stub functions for the new parse option being = added 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. >=20 > You keep thinking that parsing should be introduced separately. > I keep saying it is part of the feature. >=20 >=20