Hello Jani, On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:23:50PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > after most feedback for my series "drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev > > to drm_dev"[1] was positive in principle, here comes a new series. > > I find it obnoxious to send a new series within 24 hours of the first, > while the discussion is still in progress, and it's a misrepresentation > of the in-progress dicussion to say most of the feedback was positive. > > This is not the way to reach consensus. Let me tell you I didn't had any obnoxious intentions when sending this new series. I honestly still think that the feedback was mostly positive to the idea to get rid of struct drm_device *dev. Most discussion was about splitting the series and the right name to use instead of "dev". The intention was more to signal: OK, I do it in one patch per rename and OK I'll use "drm" and not "drm_dev". > > I didn't call it v2 as it is different enough to stand on its own. > > > > The motivation is that "dev" (at least in my bubble) usually is a struct > > device *, and it's irritating to see things like drm->dev->dev where drm > > is a struct nouveau_drm *, drm->dev is a a struct drm_device * and > > drm->dev->dev is a struct device *. (Obviously this series doesn't fix > > this particular instance, but this is the intrusive part affecting > > several drivers, the remainder is driver specific.) > > As I just replied in the first series [1], this is also a > misrepresentation of the common practise in the kernel. It might just be > your bubble, as you point out. There are tons of struct > something_or_other *dev in kernel, which also have a dev member. If I see something that I consider worth improving, I don't spend much thought about what else is equally bad (or even worse) in other places. And still less this should stop anyone to improve things. I tackled drm because that was the subsystem that annoyed me yesterday. If you say you consider the idea bad or too costly to implement, that's fine. But pointing to other areas that are bad shouldn't be a relevant reason to shoot down this effort. > Is it just drm that annoys you, or are you planning on changing all of > the others too? I plan to complete the drm one, the others should not matter here. (But see my longer reply to that in the previous thread.) Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
