Re: [PATCH v3 27/28] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or_iboe()

[Michael Wang <yun.wang@profitbricks.com>]

On 04/16/2015 08:07 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:43 AM
>> To: Michael Wang
>> Cc: Roland Dreier; Sean Hefty; Hal Rosenstock; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Tom Tucker; Steve Wise;
>> Hoang-Nam Nguyen; Christoph Raisch; Mike Marciniszyn; Eli Cohen; Faisal Latif; Jack Morgenstein; Or Gerlitz; Haggai Eran; Ira
> Weiny;
>> Tom Talpey; Doug Ledford
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 27/28] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or_iboe()
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:13:03AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
>>
>>>> I would be very happy to see a patch that adds cap_ib_smi to the
>>>> current tree and states 'This patch is tested to have no change on the
>>>> binary compilation results'
>>>
>>> There are too much reform there (per-dev to per-port), I guess the binary
>>> will changed more or less anyway...
>>
>> I think this patch series is huge, and everytime someone new looks at
>> it small functional errors seem to pop up..
>>
>> Doing something to reduce the review surface would be really helpful
>> here. Not changing the same line twice, using tools too perform these
>> transforms and then assert the patch is a NOP because .. tools. Some
>> other idea?
>>
> 
> Don't try and change everything in one giant series.   Just do some changes this cycle (keep it at < 8 or 10 patches), and do more
> later...

Actually only 1#~15# related to logical reform, rest are just replacement :-)

Me too would like to stop introducing new stuff at this moment, and focus on
the improvement of what we have already settled down.

Regards,
Michael Wang

>