> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:59 PM > To: KY Srinivasan > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Haiyang Zhang; Hank > Janssen > Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Staging: hv: Cleanup hyperv_driver variable names > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:07:58PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > The title says it all. > > That's a horrible changelog comment. So bad that I would rather see an > empty message than this one. Seriously, it give no description, and > makes us think that the whole patch is obvious, when it really isn't. > > What did you change them to? > What did you change them from? > What was your motivation in changing them? > How were you feeling when the names changed? > > Ok, maybe not the last one, but you get the idea. Greg, these changes (patches 1 through 6) change so much in this sub-system that until these changes go in, our cleanup efforts are stalled. That is the main reason I was so hasty in submitting these patches. Clearly, I need to provide a better changelog comment; and I will. Looking at your other comments, I am wondering if the granularity I chose for breaking up the changes that had to be done is also a significant part of the problem. If it is ok with you, I could generate a patch that deals with all device related issues and a patch that deals with all driver related issues. These patches obviously will do more than one thing (however they will all be related); but at least they won't have intermediate state that would be objectionable. Let me know. Regards, K. Y _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
