> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:53 PM > To: KY Srinivasan > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Haiyang Zhang; Hank > Janssen > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Staging: hv: Unify the hyperv driver abstractions > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:07:03PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > This patch combines the two driver abstractions into > > a single driver abstraction. > > Ah, how sweet. Unfortunatly you don't say "how" you did this. > > Nor do you describe _what_ those two driver abstractions were. Are we > talking i2c and usb abstractions? gpio and spi? Driver core and > platform? We want to know exactly what is going on here. My mistake; I will have a more descriptive comment. > > Think of writing something that when you look back, in 3 years, while > staring at a Linux hyperv driver originally written for the 2.6.9 > kernel, that somehow never got forward ported and you are tasked with > doing this, that you can just do a simple 'git log drivers/staging/hv/' > and instantly know just from the changelog comments exactly what you > need to do to your driver to clean it up and properly get it to work on > the new 8.2.2 kernel release. > > This changelog entry, would require you to go and dig through the guts > of the patch itself, trying to figure out what abstractions you are > talking about, and exactly how they were combined, all the while > wondering _why_ they were combined. > > Please, think of your future self, you will thank him in the years to > come by doing this properly. Not to mention making other's lives easier > if you happen to have escaped this dire task by then. > > Oh, you have an extra space up there in the subject, please fix it next > time. > > > -int blk_vsc_initialize(struct hv_driver *driver) > > +int blk_vsc_initialize(struct driver_context *driver) > > "struct driver_context"? Oh please no. Greg; this is the patch that consolidates the state in struct hv_driver into struct driver_context. In the spirit of doing one thing in a patch; other relevant changes are made in: Patch[5/6]: Changes the name driver_context to hyperv_driver Patch[6/6]: Cleanup all variable names that refer to struct hyperv_driver. > > I realize that you are hopefully going to later rename this to something > else, but remember, a few patches back you thought that the "ctx" name > wasn't nice. And here you go resuscitating it from the graveyard of > pointy bits. As I noted in a different email, may be the granularity I chose in breaking up these patches is causing all this confusion. > > And what happens if your future patch is rejected? You are stuck with a > "driver_context" structure in a subsystem? That's a pretty big abuse of > the global namespace, don't you think? It sounds like something that > should go into include/linux/device.h > > Please be careful about names, they mean things, even when you think > they don't. Greg, would it be better if I just had one patch for dealing with all device related issues and a Separate patch for dealing all driver related issues? Regards, K. Y _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
