Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:16:03 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 8/9] drivers: hv: dxgkrnl: Implement various WDDM ioctls | From | Iouri Tarassov <> |
| |
On 1/13/2022 9:38 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 04:19:41PM -0800, Iouri Tarassov wrote: > > > > On 1/12/2022 11:47 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Iouri Tarassov wrote: > > > > Implement various WDDM IOCTLs. > > > > Again, break this up into smaller pieces. Would you want to review > > > all > > > of these at the same time? > > > > > > Remember, you write code for people to review and understand first, and > > > the compiler second. With large changes like this, you are making it > > > difficult for people to review, which is your target audience. > > > > > > I'll stop here, please fix up this patch series into something that is > > > reviewable. > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html > > states that "only post say 15 [patches] or so at a time and wait for review > > and integration". > > The IOCTLs here are simple and I tried to keep the number of patches smaller > > than 15. Is it ok to have more than 15 patches in a submission, or I need to > > submit the driver is several chunks (some of which would be not fully > > functional)? > > We get patch series that are much longer all the time, that's fine. How > many do you feel would be needed to properly break this out?
Hi Greg,
I think there could be 20-25 patches.
Implementation of many IOCTLs follow the same pattern: - add the IOCTL definition to the ioctl table - implement a function to send the corresponding VM bus message to the host - implement a function to handle the IOCTL input data, call the function to send message to the host and copy results back to the caller.
I tried to combine several such implementations to a single patch. I think the patch is logically simple and it would be easy to review.
What is your opinion?
Thanks Iouri
| |