[PATCH] D16381: Infrastructure to allow use of PGO in inliner

Mon Mar 7 13:33:37 PST 2016

David,

 The code reviews section of the developer policy
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews lists 5 policies and
evidently this review does not violate them (this is a pre-commit review
which has an explicit LGTM). The
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-owners section has this
line: "The sole responsibility of a code owner is to ensure that a commit
to their area of the code is appropriately reviewed, either by themself or
by someone else. ".  Given the context of this paragraph, it seems to me
that this is more for post-commit reviews, but even otherwise I would think
most people would consider this "appropriately reviewed": bugs and quality
issues have been found by the reviewer and fixed over 9 revisions.

This isn't to say that reasonable people cannot differ on whether this
patch is the right way forward, but that is different from the question of
whether this follows the policy as it is written.

Thanks,
Easwaran

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:34 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-commits <
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> This isn't really the place to debate LLVM policy - the code owner asked
> you to revert a patch due to concerns over the review. Please revert it &
> take up the discussion about general policy on llvm-dev, or the discussion
> about whether the revert is merited after reverting. There's really no harm
> in reverting a patch.
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-commits <
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:47 PM Xinliang David Li via llvm-commits <
>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> chandlerc added a comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16381#367348, @davidxl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > LGTM.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This looks really great, so let's move on with this long waited
>>>>> missing feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David, this is not an area of LLVM you have done substantial work on,
>>>>> and this is a very significant feature.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The patch has been reviewed and tested thoroughly. The approach used by
>>>> the patch has been discussed many times in the past since last October in
>>>> various contexts in which you were involved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry that I have not had time to review this yet, but the correct
>>>>> response is not for you to make a patch as LGTM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again we have done extensive review on this patch. According to your
>>>> standard, it looks like only you can approve patches in the inliner?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, but the only people on this thread are you and Easwaran.
>>>
>>>
>> There are 4 reviewers listed (including you) and 7 subscribers including
>> llvm-commits.  Click on 'Show older changes' to see the review history.  So
>> what exactly do you mean the only people on the thread are me and Easwaran?
>>
>>
>>
>>> There are other folks who I think could reasonable review changes to the
>>> inliner, but you've not gotten a review from any of them... Hal, Philip,
>>> Sanjoy, or several others would all potentially be reasonable people.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You and Hal are listed as reviewers, and the patch were pinged several
>> times.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   IMO this is not healthy to the project and more people need to get
>>>> involved. As it stands today, it seems to be very hard to everybody in the
>>>> community to make any changes in the inliner due to this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note that it is very hard to make changes to the inliner in general. It
>>> isn't clear that a small number of reviewers for inliner changes is a
>>> substantial issue for the community in general.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think it is hard to make changes to inliner?   As far as I
>> know, this feature is a *long* waited feature by the community. People who
>> care have been following.  This patch is a great progress forward for the
>> project not the other way around. If you see substantial issue, please be
>> specific.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Please revert this and let's actually get it reviewed before it goes
>>>>> into the project.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Actually get reviewed?  What do you mean? Have you really followed the
>>>> thread?   If you want to be constructive, please do your part of the
>>>> review, but not request a revert like this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The patch needs to be reviewed by someone who has significant experience
>>> working on LLVM's inliner, as it is a significant change.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The patch is very nicely structured and it is not a significant change.
>> We have been very careful in designing and testing.   Besides both Easwaran
>> and I have extensive experience in inliner design in general.
>>
>>
>>> The patch shouldn't stay in the tree just because the review is slow, as
>>> that doesn't actually solve anything. Everyone else is working with
>>> reviewers to get their patches reviewed, and I don't think it is reasonable
>>> for you to just push forward. =/
>>>
>>
>> Let me repeat, the patch has been carefully reviewed. I am not saying
>> that all problems have been covered, but it is in reasonably good shape
>> before it is approved.  We are not rushing it in -- the related discussion
>> has been going on for half a year!
>>
>> Only more tests from the community can help reveal more problems -- if
>> there are problems, we can always fix them.  Have you seen actual problem
>> to the community by this patch?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160307/5e75a6b1/attachment.html>