[Openmp-commits] [PATCH] D62393: [OPENMP][NVPTX]Mark parallel level counter as volatile.
Alexey Bataev via Phabricator via Openmp-commits
openmp-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jun 13 13:41:30 PDT 2019
ABataev added a comment.
In D62393#1542465 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62393#1542465>, @hfinkel wrote:
> In D62393#1542213 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62393#1542213>, @ABataev wrote:
> >> Again, I see no reason to believe that everyone here isn't acting in good faith and working to create the software of the highest possible quality. Thanks!
> > Sorry, but Johannes did this. "The more patches go through with this kind of "review" the more "suspicious" this looks to me." It is his words. seems to me, he does not think that me or my colleagues are acting in good faith.
> Okay, I understand why you say this, but no. Frankly, Johannes was implying that the reviews were too lax (e.g., allowing combined patches with insufficient tests/documentation/etc.).
Only one patch was combined. Tests are added to all the functional patches as soon as I discovered the testing infrastructure for libomptarget is configured already. And I myself insist on adding test cases for the functional patches, you can ask Doru about this.
As for the documentation, yes, we lack of the documentation for libomptarget. This is a long story and it requires special work. I'm also not very happy with the current situation. But the documentation is a separate work. It requires special set of patches with the design decisions etc. Most of it follows the design of the original libomp, bit has some NVPTX specific parts.
> I think that all of these issues have now been covered here (and on D62199 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62199>, etc.), and so I won't repeat them again. The reviewers (e.g., @grokos for the case of D62199 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62199>) almost certainly believed that they were being helpful and moving the development process forward.
> The fact that the patches did not all follow our best practices, etc. makes Johannes "suspicious" that the patches could have reasonably been improved before being committed.
Which one do not follow "best practices"? The combined one? This is only one patch. NFC patches? They are refactoring patches and we already have the tests for them. He did not try to understand the idea of the patches, instead he decided to treat them "suspicious" without any comments.
> It makes me suspicious of that too. But no one here believes that anyone was trying to subvert the system and produce an inferior result - it is very likely that everyone had, and continues to have, the best of intentions.
Maybe, just maybe, before starting treat someone's activity "suspicious" better to start to try to understand something? To read something, to ask the questions in the proper manner, etc.?
> And, I'll point out, that we have indeed accomplished a lot in terms of OpenMP feature enablement, etc. At this point, we have more eyes on the process and we'll should all work together to produce an even-better result. The glass, in this case, really is half full.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
More information about the Openmp-commits