From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44063) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gPT0f-0000KM-VN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:57:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gPT0f-0004L2-2Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:57:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:57:31 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20181121085557-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20181105014047.26447-1-sameo@linux.intel.com> <20181116172919.43f3e27d@redhat.com> <20181119163110.2f357f40@redhat.com> <20181121072954-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20181121135030.GC4426@caravaggio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181121135030.GC4426@caravaggio> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 00/24] ACPI reorganization for hardware-reduced API addition List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Samuel Ortiz Cc: Igor Mammedov , Peter Maydell , Stefano Stabellini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Shannon Zhao , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Anthony Perard , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , Eduardo Habkost On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:50:30PM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:35:47AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:31:10PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:37:54 +0100 > > > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > > On 16/11/18 17:29, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > General suggestions for this series: > > > > > 1. Preferably don't do multiple changes within a patch > > > > > neither post huge patches (unless it's pure code movement). > > > > > (it's easy to squash patches later it necessary) > > > > > 2. Start small, pick a table generalize it and send as > > > > > one small patchset. Tables are often independent > > > > > and it's much easier on both author/reviewer to agree upon > > > > > changes and rewrite it if necessary. > > > > > > > > How would that be done? This series is on the bigger side, agreed, but > > > > most of it is really just code movement. It's a starting point, having > > > > a generic ACPI library is way beyond what this is trying to do. > > > I've tried to give suggestions how to restructure series > > > on per patch basis. In my opinion it quite possible to split > > > series in several smaller ones and it should really help with > > > making series cleaner and easier/faster to review/amend/merge > > > vs what we have in v5. > > > (it's more frustrating to rework large series vs smaller one) > > > > > > If something isn't clear, it's easy to reach out to me here > > > or directly (email/irc/github) for clarification/feed back. > > > > I assume the #1 goal is to add reduced HW support. > >From our perspective, yes. From the project's point of view, it's about > making the current ACPI code more generic and not bound to any specific > machine type. > > > So another > > option to speed up merging is to just go ahead and duplicate a > > bunch of code e.g. in pc_virt.c acpi/reduced.c or in any other > > file. > It's precisely what we wanted to avoid in the very first place and we > assumed this would be largely frowned upon by the community. It's also a > burden for everyone to maintain that amount of duplicated code. Also I > suppose this would also mean we'd have to eventually de-duplicate and > factorize things in. For sure, that's the plan. > Honestly I'd rather not rush things out and work on code sharing first. > I'll answer Igor's numerous comments today and will start addressing > some of his concerns right aways as well. > > Cheers, > Samuel. OK, no problem then - just trying to make sure you aren't blocked. -- MST