From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1803BC2BA83 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:54:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8177222C2 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="G3ZorjER" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D8177222C2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:35592 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j0Ba5-0003wH-SO for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:54:33 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45012) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j0BZW-0002pb-Fa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:53:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j0BZU-0002mm-0A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:53:57 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:50726 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j0BZT-0002kQ-N2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:53:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1581112433; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=cPFzs69CLcsKWh6Zeggqq06x3bj43vrIyQRLMw4e3UM=; b=G3ZorjERa/fhh2mDsdsGT1IsFLnEF22u/EKADzNIx4FLCzKLdvZnKhkodiJUpnsBEptosN mChPCYq2tI2nFHhpsXbB0PZGf/W79+V5ryrfj1nHGtPI9CD533zyez9BnRdR/fLZOeZL4v XuL+t235SkMC5qa8TeZku02MRkcpirs= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-235-BzdheTX4MTGScyM0WzRvgw-1; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:53:50 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2A878014D1; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:53:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.3.116.180] (ovpn-116-180.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.180]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 253231001B30; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:53:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Getting whole-tree patches reviewed and merged To: Markus Armbruster , Peter Maydell References: <87d0bmchq0.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <1B253197-5592-472A-AA26-E0614A13C91A@redhat.com> <87o8v52hz9.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <8CF8359B-1E52-4F7A-944E-C1C14FEC4F92@redhat.com> <87r200zzje.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200120100849.GB345995@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <871rrtmkko.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200121113224.GD630615@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <87wo9lc4oe.fsf_-_@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200121143658.GB597037@redhat.com> <871rrs97ld.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <871rrs136l.fsf_-_@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:53:42 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <871rrs136l.fsf_-_@dusky.pond.sub.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-MC-Unique: BzdheTX4MTGScyM0WzRvgw-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 207.211.31.81 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= , "Denis V. Lunev" , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel , =?UTF-8?Q?Marc-Andr=c3=a9_Lureau?= , Christophe de Dinechin , Paolo Bonzini , John Snow , Dominik Csapak Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 1/21/20 11:16 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Peter Maydell writes: >=20 >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 15:11, Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau >> wrote: >>> There are plenty of refactoring to do. The problem when touching the >>> whole code-base, imho, is review time. It may take a couple of >>> hours/days to come up with a cocci/spatch, and make various patches >>> here and there. But it takes often weeks and a lot of constant push to >>> various folks to get all the reviews (as seens by the qdev prop-ptr >>> series earlier for example). How can we better address whole code-base >>> changes? >> >> It depends. If it's literally just a cocci/spatch mechanical >> transformation, I think we should be OK with reviewing that >> transform and then applying it; we don't need to get acks >> from every submaintainer for that kind of thing. >=20 > I go one step further: I prefer mechanical changes committed together, > not torn apart and routed through N+1 trees, where N is the number of > active maintainers picking patches from the series, and 1 is the > maintainer taking pity of the inevitable leftovers. >=20 > Tearing a patch series apart may be in order when it's invasive enough > to risk many conflicts. The subsystem maintainer may need tighter > control over merging order then, and routing picked patches through his > own tree may be the practical way to get it. And the pending work on ERRP_AUTO_PROPAGATE is an example of that -=20 Vladimir has been trying to get the improvements in for some time, but=20 it touches so many files, and is awkward to review whether it is split=20 into over 100 patches per maintainer area or when it is consolidates=20 into few but large patches. --=20 Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org