On 10/27/2010 07:59 AM, Feng Yang wrote: > > ----- "Michael Goldish" <mgoldish@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: "Michael Goldish" <mgoldish@xxxxxxxxxx> >> To: autotest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: "Michael Goldish" <mgoldish@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:49:43 AM GMT +08:00 Beijing / Chongqing / Hong Kong / Urumqi >> Subject: [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH 4/5] KVM test: kvm_subprocess: rename get_command_status_output() and friends >> >> get_command_status_output() -> cmd_status_output() >> get_command_output() -> cmd_output() >> get_command_status() -> cmd_status() > Any reason for these change? coding style issue? > If there is no necessary reason, we better do not change them. These functions is widely used, the change may introduce errors. > Changing interface will bring some workload and risk. At least we need change all our internal case when merging with upstream. I think raising exceptions in these functions (patch 1 in the series) causes much more significant compatibility issues than just renaming them. Since we're making lots of changes throughout the code anyway because of the exceptions, I thought this would be a good time to rename the functions. We can keep both the old names and the new names, so new tests can be merged upstream and then modified later to use the new names. Does that sound OK? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
