[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [virtio-comment] RE: [PATCH v10 06/10] mmio: document ADMIN_VQ as reserved
> From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:24 AM > >> And I wonder whether it's worth it - it definitely makes contributing > >> to Linux harder, and even within Linux it pushes contributors away. > > The number of virtio spec contributors are in order of magnitude less than > Linux kernel or just the Linux netdev. > > Patch split up reduces lot of time author and reviewers. > > For example, interrupt moderation at v10 can be very easily split up where > prep patch can have RB tag and v11 doesn't need reviewers and author's time. > > Your work here with 10 patches is yet another good example of it. > > I remember Max and I started with 6 patches... and current 10 are more > useful way to split them. > > I'd argue that splitting changes in a way that makes it easy for reviewers is a > good thing for any project (although practices on many forges seem to go into > another direction...) > In my experience in dpdk, Linux netdev, rdma, nvme, tells me that patch splitting is common practice. > > > >> At least for Linux > >> tracking history in a precise way is extremely important since it's > >> helpful with stability. Spec is very different. > >> > >> Until we have a good contribution documentation I think we should not > >> ask people to follow a pseudo Linux work flow with requests like > >> "please split this patchset up" or "track changes across patch versions" > >> simply because there's no good docs to teach people what exactly is > >> the best practice. > > > > Yes, I wanted to update the contributing document. It is in my to-do list. > > But given the small crowd of contributors right now, almost everyone is > familiar with the RB, ack tag. > > At moment it has two main reasons. > > > > 1. Acknowledge the work and efforts that go in the review > > I agree, and I try to include tags when applying. > Sure. It is not about you. It is about the patch author when he/she sends v9 to v10, adding R-b tag in v10 (for the already reviewed work of v9) helps to ack and speed up the v10 review. > > 2. When in question, reach out later to the spec author or reviewers to know > about context/design etc. > > 3. Same reviewer doesn't need to go through the patch which already has RB > tag of him/her. > > I tend to use R-b in that way as well, but it relies on the patch author not doing > substantial changes between versions... > > I guess the usage of R-b et al in the virtio spec stems from the fact that many > contributors are also Linux and/or QEMU contributors -- not sure if it makes > sense to enshrine their usage, but > > 4. We can get an R-b from a non-TC member who is an expert on the topic (and > follows standard Linux/QEMU/... practices.) > The intent here was between vN to v(N+1). Virtio spec maintainers are likely adding R-b when they merge anyway. No issue there. > In the end, how the TC members are voting is the only thing that matters for > inclusion.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]