On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:23:51 +0800 Zihan Yang <tgny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, sorry for the confusion, I will give a new patch series. I'm not very > familiar with > the conventions so I wonder if someone could help clarify some principles > for me. > I'd like to replace all the init/exit callback of DeviceClass to > realize/unrealize, and > convert return type of exit callback of some higher-level classes, like > HDACodecDeviceClass, to void. > > My first question Is it a good idea to split these patches into two series? > For example, > one series to convert exit callback of these higher-level classes to void, > and then the > other to replace all the init/exit callback of DeviceClass to > realize/unrealize. This is probably a good idea: converting exit callbacks to void is relatively straightforward, while converting to realize/unrealize might be better done while revisiting some of the modelling of the relevant subsystems. (For example, all classes for virtio-ccw use the same exit callback - it might be a good idea to do the same work in a common unrealize function when you touch it anyway.) > > The second question is that should I always give separate patch for > different directories? > One example is that in both hw/ide and hw/block, I need to replace the > init callback with > realize in some high-level classes, should I give two patches or just give > one patch for > the work? A better way to split is along maintainership responsibilites (which may or may not align with directories). Again, sticking with the code I maintain, I would merge changes to hw/char/sclp* and hw/s390x/, but not to other code in hw/char/. Try to stick to logical units (continuing with that example, different patches for sclp and virtio-ccw would make sense). The most important thing to remember when splitting changes is that you need to preserve bisectability, i.e. every step in your patch series needs to compile.
