> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:32 PM > To: KY Srinivasan > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Haiyang Zhang; Hank Janssen > Subject: Re: [PATCH ] Staging: hv: Hyper-V driver cleanup > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:24:57AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 6:46 PM > > > To: KY Srinivasan > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Haiyang Zhang; Hank Janssen > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH ] Staging: hv: Hyper-V driver cleanup > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:20:58PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > > > This patch cleans up (a lot of the) naming issues that > > > > various reviewers have noted. It also gets rid of > > > > some unnecessary layering in the code. > > > > > > Whenever you have a patch description that says "It also..." you know > > > you need to break this up into smaller, logical pieces. > > > > The name change was related to the layering issue. For instance I combined the > > Vm_device and hv_device abstractions to build the hyperv_device abstraction. > > Likewise, I combined the driver_context and the hv_driver abstractions to build > the > > the hyperv_driver abstraction. Would breaking this patch up into two patches, > > one dealing with the device abstraction consolidation and the other dealing > with > > the consolidation of driver abstractions satisfy your concern. Even if I partition > this > > patch along these lines, it will still be a large set of patches; since these changes > > are pervasive. > > pervasive patches are fine, just remember, "each patch can only do one > thing". It sounds like you want to do at least 2 patches here, if not > a lot more. Look at my past patches when I combined things and removed > a whole layer for how to do this in a very incremental, piece-by-piece > fashion (i.e, move one field over at a time until the structure is gone, > and then remove it entirely.) If it is ok with you, I will do two patches - one for dealing with consolidating device structure and the other for consolidating the driver abstractions. > > > > There is no 2.6.38 kernel yet, so I find this very hard to believe :) > > > > My mistake; I did not specify the full output of uname -a on the box > > that I tested this code. This box is running the LINUX-NEXT kernel : > > 2.6.38-rc1-0.2-default. > > linux-next should be farther along than -rc1 as -rc6 is currently out. While the hv code is from the tip of the tree; the kernel I am running is a little dated. Regards, K. Y > > confused, > > greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
