Nouveau - Jul 2023 - [Freedreno] [PATCH RFC v1 00/52] drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev to drm_dev

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04?AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig
<u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> hello Sean,
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted.
This
> > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a
> > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect
> > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost
> > IM[biased]O.
>
> I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split
> approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1
> (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could be
> trivially backported and with that it doesn't matter if you write dev
or
> drm (or whatever name is chosen in the end); both work in the same way.
Patch #1 avoids the need to backport the entire set, however every
change occuring after the rename patches will cause conflicts on
future cherry-picks. Downstream kernels will have to backport the
whole set. Backporting the entire set will create an epoch in
downstream kernels where cherry-picking patches preceding this set
will need to undergo conflict resolution as well. As mentioned in my
previous email, I don't expect sympathy here, it's part of maintaining
a downstream kernel, but there is a real cost to kernel consumers.
>
> But even with the one-patch-per-rename approach I'd consider the
> renaming a net win, because ease of understanding code has a big value.
> It's value is not so easy measurable as "conflicts when
backporting",
> but it also matters in say two years from now, while backporting
> shouldn't be an issue then any more.
You've rightly identified the conjecture in your statement. I've been
on both sides of the argument, having written/maintained drm code
upstream and cherry-picked changes to a downstream kernel. Perhaps
it's because drm's definition of dev is ingrained in my muscle memory,
or maybe it's because I don't do a lot of upstream development these
days, but I just have a hard time seeing the benefit here.

I appreciate your engagement on the topic, thank you!

Sean
>
> Thanks for your input, best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

On 13/07/2023 16:09, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Am 13.07.23 um 16:41 schrieb Sean Paul:
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04?AM Uwe Kleine-K?nig
>> <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> hello Sean,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>>>> I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not
accepted. This
>>>> will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a
>>>> downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't
expect
>>>> sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh
the cost
>>>> IM[biased]O.
>>>
>>> I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the
split
>>> approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad.
Patch #1
>>> (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could be
>>> trivially backported and with that it doesn't matter if you
write dev or
>>> drm (or whatever name is chosen in the end); both work in the same
way.
>>
>> Patch #1 avoids the need to backport the entire set, however every
>> change occuring after the rename patches will cause conflicts on
>> future cherry-picks. Downstream kernels will have to backport the
>> whole set. Backporting the entire set will create an epoch in
>> downstream kernels where cherry-picking patches preceding this set
>> will need to undergo conflict resolution as well. As mentioned in my
>> previous email, I don't expect sympathy here, it's part of
maintaining
>> a downstream kernel, but there is a real cost to kernel consumers.
>>
>>>
>>> But even with the one-patch-per-rename approach I'd consider
the
>>> renaming a net win, because ease of understanding code has a big
value.
>>> It's value is not so easy measurable as "conflicts when
backporting",
>>> but it also matters in say two years from now, while backporting
>>> shouldn't be an issue then any more.
>>
>> You've rightly identified the conjecture in your statement.
I've been
>> on both sides of the argument, having written/maintained drm code
>> upstream and cherry-picked changes to a downstream kernel. Perhaps
>> it's because drm's definition of dev is ingrained in my muscle
memory,
>> or maybe it's because I don't do a lot of upstream development
these
>> days, but I just have a hard time seeing the benefit here.
> 
> I can only second what Sean writes. I've done quite a bit of
backporting
> of DRM code. It's hard already. And this kind of change is going to to 
> affect almost every backported DRM patch in the coming years. Not just 
> for distribution kernels, but also for upstream's stable series.
It's
> really only possible to do this change over many releases while keeping 
> compatible with the old name. So the more I think about it, the less I 
> like this change.
I've done my share of backporting, and still am doing it, so I can say I 
dislike it as much as anyone, however.. Is this an argument which the 
kernel as a wider entity typically accepts? If not could it be a 
slippery slope to start a precedent?

It is a honest question - I am not familiar if there were or were not 
any similar discussions in the past.

My gut feeling is that *if* there is a consensus that something 
_improves_ the code base significantly, backporting pains should 
probably not be weighted very heavily as a contra argument.

Regards,

Tvrtko