Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:02:49PM CET, jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >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? Why it would not work. Describe your motivation and plans and submit part of the work, the rest later on. No problem. > >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 >> > >> >> [...]
