[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/9] app/proc-info: improve debug of proc-info tool

Varghese, Vipin vipin.varghese at intel.com
Thu Dec 27 11:45:19 CET 2018



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 3:03 PM
> To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.varghese at intel.com>
> Cc: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pattan at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Ananyev,
> Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; stephen at networkplumber.org;
> Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; Byrne, Stephen1
> <stephen1.byrne at intel.com>; Patel, Amol <amol.patel at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/9] app/proc-info: improve debug of proc-
> info tool
> 
> 27/12/2018 03:46, Varghese, Vipin:
> > snipped
> > > > > > > Small nits
> > > > > > > 9th patch in this set is doc. So above info need to be corrected.
> > > > > > > if you are addressing my earlier comment of separating out
> > > > > > > mempool element iteration changes in to separate new patch
> > > > > > > 9/10 .Please keep my ack in next version
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for pointing this out, Like updated in email and chat I
> > > > > > am not
> > > > > planning to split it. Hence no version 8.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, no ack and no merge?
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at the first patches + doc patch, the split is not meaningful.
> > > > > You should merge doc and option parsing in the related patches.
> > > > > For instance, parsing and doc of "tm" option should be in the "tm"
> patch.
> > > >
> > > > I did not follow you request. Are you stating, for each
> > > > functionality I should
> > > be updating document rather than 1 document update after adding the
> > > new functions? If former is true I am not able to find such
> > > reasoning stated in guideline or documentation or from the maintainer.
> > >
> > > Yes, you should update the doc while adding a new feature.
> > Ok, I will comply to your requirement even though it is not in 'guideline,
> documentation or from maintainer'. Humbly requesting to update
> documentation and guideline suggesting the same. This will also help others
> to submit patches according the new guideline. Once reflected it will be
> justified for sending a v8.
> 
> Vipin, please read the doc carefully:
> 	http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=9e0e4a00df775
Thank you Thomas for this update, I will make the changes for v8 and wait for your ACK.

> 
> > > But most importantly, there is no reason to do a patch adding some
> > > empty functions and filling them later.
> > Following are the reasons for using stub function from v1 onwards till
> > v7 1. Without the dummy function there are compiler warnings for unused
> variables.
> > 2. It is logical to have stub functions for the new parse option being added in
> one go.
> >
> > These are based on the suggestion from the maintainer.
> >
> > > And please consider the option parsing is part of the feature.
> > As mentioned above please find the reasoning stated for patches from v1 to
> v7.
> 
> You keep thinking that parsing should be introduced separately.
> I keep saying it is part of the feature.
> 
> 



More information about the dev mailing list