Hi Reinette, On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 13:22 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Sai, > > On 3/11/2020 12:14 PM, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 10:03 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > > On 3/10/2020 6:59 PM, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 15:14 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > > > > Hi Sai, > > > > > [SNIP] > > > > Please let me know if you think otherwise > > > > > > I think this patch can be split up into logical changes without breaking > > > the tests along the way. In my original review I identified two changes > > > that can be split out. Other things that can be split out: > > > - have CAT test take shareable bits into account > > > - enable measurement of cache references (addition of this new perf > > > event attribute, hooks to get measurements, etc.) > > > - transition CAT test to use "perf rate" measurement instead of "perf > > > count" > > > - etc. > > > > I think we could split the patch like this but I am unable to see the > > benefit > > of doing so.. (Sorry! if I misunderstood what you meant). > > Separating patches into logical changes facilitates review. Please > consider this huge patch from the reviewer's perspective - it consists > out of many different changes and is hard to review. If instead this > patch was split into logical changes it would make it easier to > understand what it is trying to do/change. Ok.. makes sense. > This is not a request that I invent but part of the established kernel > development process. Please see > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst (section is titled "Separate > your changes"). Sure! will take a look at it. > > > As CAT and CQM test cases are buggy (CAT is not testing CAT at all) and we > > are > > not attempting to fix them by incremental changes but completely changing > > the > > test plan itself (i.e. the way the test works), so why not just remove > > older > > test cases and add new test? I thought this might be more easier for > > review > > i.e. to see the new test case all at once. Don't you think so? > > From what I understand the new test continues to use many parts of the > original test. Completely removing the original test would thus end up > needing to add back a lot of code that was removed. Incremental changes > do seem appropriate to me. The logical changes I listed above actually > has nothing to do with "the way the test works". When those building > blocks are in place the test can be changed in one patch and it would be > much more obvious how the new test is different from the original. Ok.. makes sense. Will split the patch as you suggested. Regards, Sai
