From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x244.google.com (mail-lf0-x244.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c07::244]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u22-v6si302146lfi.1.2018.05.14.13.40.27 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 May 2018 13:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id y72-v6so20008765lfd.2 for ; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 23:40:36 +0300 From: Serge Semin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] NTB : Introduce message library Message-ID: <20180514204036.GD24717@mobilestation> References: <1525634420-19370-1-git-send-email-araut@codeaurora.org> <20180511223925.GB24717@mobilestation> <0f17dee9-9d68-642e-9fe0-6aaf31605cdf@deltatee.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0f17dee9-9d68-642e-9fe0-6aaf31605cdf@deltatee.com> To: Logan Gunthorpe Cc: Atul Raut , linux-ntb@googlegroups.com List-ID: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 05:00:59PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe 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 >