On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 11:42 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 03:59:48PM CET, jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > [...] > > > include/net/p4tc.h | 161 +++ > > include/net/p4tc_ext_api.h | 199 +++ > > include/uapi/linux/p4tc.h | 61 + > > include/uapi/linux/p4tc_ext.h | 36 + > > net/sched/p4tc/Makefile | 2 +- > > net/sched/p4tc/p4tc_bpf.c | 79 +- > > net/sched/p4tc/p4tc_ext.c | 2204 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > net/sched/p4tc/p4tc_pipeline.c | 34 +- > > net/sched/p4tc/p4tc_runtime_api.c | 10 +- > > net/sched/p4tc/p4tc_table.c | 57 +- > > net/sched/p4tc/p4tc_tbl_entry.c | 25 +- > > net/sched/p4tc/p4tc_tmpl_api.c | 4 + > > net/sched/p4tc/p4tc_tmpl_ext.c | 2221 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 13 files changed, 5083 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > This is for this patch. Now for the whole patchset you have: > 30 files changed, 16676 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) > > I understand that you want to fit into 15 patches with all the work. > But sorry, patches like this are unreviewable. My suggestion is to split > the patchset into multiple ones including smaller patches and allow > people to digest this. I don't believe that anyone can seriously stand > to review a patch with more than 200 lines changes. This specific patch is not difficult to split into two. I can do that and send out minus the first 8 trivial patches - but not familiar with how to do "here's part 1 of the patches" and "here's patchset two". There's dependency between them so not clear how patchwork and reviewers would deal with it. Thoughts? Note: The code machinery is really repeatable; for example if you look at the tables control you will see very similar patterns to actions etc. i.e spending time to review one will make it easy for the rest. cheers, jamal > [...]
