From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/12] net: sched: propagate extack to cls offloads on destroy and only with skip_sw Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:15:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20180124211500.GC2087@nanopsycho> References: <20180124205424.6976-1-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <20180124210427.GB2087@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jakub Kicinski , davem@davemloft.net, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com, aring@mojatatu.com To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f169.google.com ([209.85.128.169]:36789 "EHLO mail-wr0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932238AbeAXVPC (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:15:02 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-f169.google.com with SMTP id d9so5496188wre.3 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:15:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:07:25PM CET, dsahern@gmail.com wrote: >On 1/24/18 2:04 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> For the record, I still think it is odd to have 6 patches just to add >> one arg to a function. I wonder where this unnecessary patch splits >> would lead to in the future. > >I think it made the review much easier than 1 really long patch. Even squashed, the patch is quite small. Doing the same thing in every hunk. On contrary, the split made it more complicated for me, because when I looked at patch 1 and the function duplication with another arg, I did not understand what is going on. Only the last patch actually explained it. But perhaps I'm slow.