Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] NTB : Introduce message library

[Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 05:00:59PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> wrote:
> On 5/11/2018 4:39 PM, Serge Semin wrote:
> >Definitely I didn't tell you just to copy-and-paste the whole service functions
> >from ntb_perf. One of the ntb_perf driver purpose was to create an example of
> >possible cross-interface communication code, which turned to be the "service"
> >subsystem of the driver. My idea was to have it used as a proof of concept and
> >a stably working code for the future cross-iface library. The library is going
> >to be a part of the NTB API itself - a part of the generic interface for the
> >whole NTB subsystem, so I recommended to have the design discussed first, otherwise
> >you'd risk to face review requests which would cause a serious code refactoring.
> >As far as I can see, it turned out to be true.
> 
> IMO, and in my experience, when working on APIs that have multiple users in
> the kernel you should *expect* to refactor and rewrite the code a couple
> times before we land on something that is clean enough to merge. I have
> patch sets that have gone through many *significant* changes and they are
> still works in progress. This is normal and don't expect discussion ahead of
> time to converge on the right answer right away.

I've got the same experience. But one thing I also got from it. If I knew a
maintainers notion about a change, I would have developed a code in accordance
with it. At least I'd try to understand the maintainer ideas and after discussions
we'd come up to some agreement. So if I had a way to chat with subsystem support
team, I would have used it without a doubt. Of course this doesn't mean that a
patchset would be accepted right after a first submit, but you must admit it would
lead to a code closer to acceptance than if it was created without the consultation.

-Sergey

> >Even though this more like a "philosophic" part, but this time Logan's opinion
> >happens to agree with the design we discussed a while ago with the rest of the
> >NTB maintainers:
> 
> Glad we agree for a change ;)
> 
> Logan
>