Hi, On Thu 13 Jul 23, 16:10, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Maxime, > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 01:17:43PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:39:40PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > 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". > > > > And then you have a former and current maintainers that tell you that > > they'd prefer not to merge it at all. > > I went back to the previous thread rereading the replies I got yesterday > (i.e. the ones I was aware when I started to respin the series). By then > following people stated their opinion: > > - Paul Kocialkowski > Is happy with the status quo > naming: drm_dev > { drmdev, drm } Just to clarify, I am against the change (not sure this is what you meant by happy with the status quo) but if the majority is in favor then I prefer to have the member named drm_dev. > - Thomas Zimmermann > All data structures should be converted > naming: drm > * > - Javier Martinez Canillas > Generally in favour (also via irc) > Wants a single patch > naming: drm > drm_dev > dev > - Russell King > Sent a "Reviewed-by, Thanks" > - Christan König > Wants a single patch > naming: don't care > - Maxime Ripard > Wants a single patch > - Sui Jingfeng > no union > naming: { drm, ddev } > drm_dev > dev > - Luben Tuikov > Wants a single patch > naming: drm_dev > { drm, dev } > - Jani Nikula > unnecessary change.(is this a "no" or a "don't care"?) > naming: drm > * > - Sean Paul > doesn't like this change > > I admit I'm not aware about the roles here, but up to then only Sean > Paul wrote a clear no and maybe Jani Nikula a small one. I interpreted > Paul Kocialkowski's replay as indifferent to the renaming. To reiterate: I am against the change, not indifferent. Cheers, Paul > All others > were in favour or only criticised details and naming. > > What did I miss (apart from today's replies which indeed are more > negative: > > - Thierry Reding > Agreed to Jani Nikula that this change is > unnecessary, also understood that for non-DRM people it might be > confusing. > naming: dev > drm > * > - Thomas Zimmermann > Agreed to Sean Paul about the too high downsides > - Geert Uytterhoeven > In favour (also before via irc) > )? > > > Ignoring those concerns > > I'm really surprised by this suggestion. Either I really missed > something, or I'd like to ask these maintainers to communicate in a more > obvious way. If I send a series and I get feedback like "If you rename > drm_crtc.dev, you should also address *all* other data structures." (by > Thomas Zimmermann) or "When you automatically generate the patch (with > cocci for example) I usually prefer a single patch instead." (by > Christan König) then I would expect that if they oppose the underlying > idea of the series they would say so, too. I'm sorry, I cannot read a > concern (to the underlying idea) from these replies. And so I addressed > the feedback about the details with a new series to have an updated base > for the discussion. > > > and then sending a new version right away is, if not obnoxious, > > definitely aggressive. > > If this is how you experience my submission even after I tried to > explain my real intentions, I'm sorry. And I'm sure there is a deep > misunderstanding somewhere. > > Best regards > Uwe > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | > Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature