On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:13:02PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/06/2015 10:56 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > - patch 8 > > - add "DumpQueryResult" in DUMP_COMPLETED event [Eric] > > (since DumpQueryResult is introduced in patch 10, so doing it in > > patch 10 for convenience. Please let me know if I should not do > > this, e.g., if patch re-ordering is required) > > All patches should build in isolation. It looks like you met that goal > (you introduce 'DUMP_COMPLETED' event in 8 without a 'result' member, > then modify it in 10), so that it at least builds. But it results in > churn, in that you have multiple different definitions of > 'DUMP_COMPLETED' over the life of the series. > > It's not a requirement to rework things since each step builds, but if I > were writing the series, I do find it conceptually easier to supply > patches in an order that minimizes churn (the first patch that > introduces a type uses its final form, rather than going through several > iterations of that type). So on that grounds, introducing > DumpQueryResult as a separate patch, before either DUMP_COMPLETED or > query-dump, might be easier to review, if there is a reason for a v6 spin.
Yes, it's harder for review. Sorry for that. I think there should have a v6 spin, I will put DUMP_COMPLETE patch to the end of the patch set. Thanks. Peter
