On 2023-07-12 09:53, Christian König wrote: > Am 12.07.23 um 15:38 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: >> Hello Maxime, >> >> 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. >>>> Really? >>> 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. > > Regards, > Christian. > >> >> 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. I'm with Maxime and Christian on this--a single action necessitates a single patch. One single movement. As Maxime said "either 0 or 100." As to the name, perhaps "drm_dev" is more descriptive than just "drm". What is "drm"? Ah it's a "dev", as in "drm dev"... Then why not rename it to "drm_dev"? You are renaming it from "dev" to something more descriptive after all. "dev" --> "drm" is no better, but "dev" --> "drm_dev" is just right. -- Regards, Luben