From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gZfes-0004sD-CI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:29:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gZfep-00085X-40 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:29:22 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43952) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gZfeo-00084R-Te for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:29:19 -0500 References: <20181211095057.14623-1-fli@suse.com> <20181211095057.14623-7-fli@suse.com> <87y38tc2fb.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <3645fb54-3651-f63b-c416-b22634e1f992@suse.com> <87zht1keso.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Eric Blake Message-ID: <9be94c80-623d-c1e7-2524-07b07d05446c@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:29:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-4.0 v8 6/7] qemu_thread_create: propagate the error to callers to handle List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fei Li , Markus Armbruster Cc: David Gibson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" On 12/19/18 6:14 AM, Fei Li wrote: >>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0 28 files changed, 243 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-) >> I recommend to split this patch.=C2=A0 First part adds the Error ** pa= rameter >> to qemu_thread_create(), passing &error_abort everywhere.=C2=A0 No fun= ctional >> change.=C2=A0 Subsequent patches then improve on &error_abort.=C2=A0 T= his way, >> each improvement patch can be cc'ed to just that part's maintainer(s). >> Parts you don't want to touch you simply leave at &error_abort.=C2=A0 = Makes >> sense? > Yes, I think this makes sense, much clearer. :) But I am a little=20 > worried about > whether too many subsequent improvement patches (some of them are quite > small changes) are acceptable. A long series of small patches, where each patch is cc'd to an=20 appropriate maintainer, will likely get cumulative reviews faster than a=20 single monolithic patch where no one person is the expert on every line=20 touched. --=20 Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org