Re: [RFC] Proposal to address hfi1 UI and EPROM devices

[Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 09:38:34AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> I'd also make a very clear message to driver submitters: Do not
>> include uAPIs in your initial driver patch set. Those should follow on
>> as dedicated well identified patches so that they attracted the proper
>> review.
>
>It is hard to agree with this point.
>It contradicts to development model of submitting whole feature at once
>and not unconnected piece of code, which someone will be needed to
>maintain without any real user behind it.

I think the message really should be that if your driver contains uAPI 
changes those should be in separate patches that are clearly identified. So 
if you have a driver that is developed off-list initially, instead of just 
breaking it up into chunks for submission add another step.

Something like this:
1) Submit patch series which break-ups internally developed code
2) Submit patch series with separated out uAPI code
3) Submit patch that makes the build go-live

These can all be submitted together, but with the patches broken up like 
this reviewers can target uAPI code more easily.

-Denny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html