On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:22 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 01:14:43PM CET, jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >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". > > Split into multiple patchsets and send one by one. No need to have all > in at once. > > > >There's dependency between them so not clear how patchwork and > > What dependency. It should compile. Introduce some basic functionality > first and extend it incrementally with other patchsets. The usual way. > Sorry, still not following: Lets say i split the current patchset 1 with patch 1-8 (which are trivial and have been reviewed) then make the rest into patchset 2 with a new set 1-8. I dont see how patchset 2 compiles unless it has access to code from patchset 1. Unless patchset 1 is merged i dont see how this works with patchwork or reviewers. Am i missing something? cheers, jamal > > >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 > > > >> [...]
