Am 12.07.23 um 15:38 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:52:38PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 01:02:53PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Background is that this makes merge conflicts easier to handle and detect.
FWIW, I agree with Christian here.
Each file (apart from include/drm/drm_crtc.h) is only touched once. So
unless I'm missing something you don't get less or easier conflicts by
doing it all in a single patch. But you gain the freedom to drop a
patch for one driver without having to drop the rest with it.
Not really, because the last patch removed the union anyway. So you have
to revert both the last patch, plus that driver one. And then you need
to add a TODO to remove that union eventually.
Yes, with a single patch you have only one revert (but 194 files changed,
1264 insertions(+), 1296 deletions(-)) instead of two (one of them: 1
file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-); the other maybe a bit
bigger). (And maybe you get away with just reverting the last patch.)
With a single patch the TODO after a revert is "redo it all again (and
prepare for a different set of conflicts)" while with the split series
it's only "fix that one driver that was forgotten/borked" + reapply that
10 line patch.
Yeah, but for a maintainer the size of the patches doesn't matter.
That's only interesting if you need to manually review the patch, which
you hopefully doesn't do in case of something auto-generated.
In other words if the patch is auto-generated re-applying it completely
is less work than fixing things up individually.
As the one who gets that TODO, I prefer the latter.
Yeah, but your personal preferences are not a technical relevant
argument to a maintainer.
At the end of the day Dave or Daniel need to decide, because they need
to live with it.
So in sum: If your metric is "small count of reverted commits", you're
right. If however your metric is: Better get 95% of this series' change
in than maybe 0%, the split series is the way to do it.
With me having spend ~3h on this series' changes, it's maybe
understandable that I did it the way I did.
FTR: This series was created on top of v6.5-rc1. If you apply it to
drm-misc-next you get a (trivial) conflict in patch #2. If I consider to
be the responsible maintainer who applies this series, I like being able
to just do git am --skip then.
FTR#2: In drm-misc-next is a new driver
(drivers/gpu/drm/loongson/lsdc_crtc.c) so skipping the last patch for
now might indeed be a good idea.
So I still like the split version better, but I'm open to a more
verbose reasoning from your side.
You're doing only one thing here, really: you change the name of a
structure field. If it was shared between multiple maintainers, then
sure, splitting that up is easier for everyone, but this will go through
drm-misc, so I can't see the benefit it brings.
I see your argument, but I think mine weights more.