Re: [PATCH RFC v1 00/52] drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev to drm_dev

[Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Maxime,

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:52:38PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 01:02:53PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Background is that this makes merge conflicts easier to handle and detect.
> > 
> > Really?
> 
> FWIW, I agree with Christian here.
> 
> > Each file (apart from include/drm/drm_crtc.h) is only touched once. So
> > unless I'm missing something you don't get less or easier conflicts by
> > doing it all in a single patch. But you gain the freedom to drop a
> > patch for one driver without having to drop the rest with it.
> 
> Not really, because the last patch removed the union anyway. So you have
> to revert both the last patch, plus that driver one. And then you need
> to add a TODO to remove that union eventually.

Yes, with a single patch you have only one revert (but 194 files changed,
1264 insertions(+), 1296 deletions(-)) instead of two (one of them: 1
file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-); the other maybe a bit
bigger). (And maybe you get away with just reverting the last patch.)

With a single patch the TODO after a revert is "redo it all again (and
prepare for a different set of conflicts)" while with the split series
it's only "fix that one driver that was forgotten/borked" + reapply that
10 line patch. As the one who gets that TODO, I prefer the latter.

So in sum: If your metric is "small count of reverted commits", you're
right. If however your metric is: Better get 95% of this series' change
in than maybe 0%, the split series is the way to do it.

With me having spend ~3h on this series' changes, it's maybe
understandable that I did it the way I did.

FTR: This series was created on top of v6.5-rc1. If you apply it to
drm-misc-next you get a (trivial) conflict in patch #2. If I consider to
be the responsible maintainer who applies this series, I like being able
to just do git am --skip then. 

FTR#2: In drm-misc-next is a new driver
(drivers/gpu/drm/loongson/lsdc_crtc.c) so skipping the last patch for
now might indeed be a good idea.

> > So I still like the split version better, but I'm open to a more
> > verbose reasoning from your side.
> 
> You're doing only one thing here, really: you change the name of a
> structure field. If it was shared between multiple maintainers, then
> sure, splitting that up is easier for everyone, but this will go through
> drm-misc, so I can't see the benefit it brings.

I see your argument, but I think mine weights more.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature