> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 1:10 AM > To: KY Srinivasan > Cc: Greg KH; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Haiyang Zhang; Hank Janssen > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Staging: hv: Unify the hyperv driver abstractions > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:50:00AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > > "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. > > > > > > Yes, but on its own, this patch is wrong, that is not a valid name, even > > > if it is a "temporary" name. > > > > Greg, the temporary name happens to be the name currently in use in the > > code - this is not the name I introduced. > > There is not a "struct driver_context" in the code that I see today, or > am I missing something? That's my objection here, please don't use that > name, it's not valid for a subsystem to use, even for a tiny bit. Look at the file vmbus.h you will see struct driver_context. This has been there for as long as I have seen this code. > > > Think of this as the surviving data structure after the hv_driver > > state is consolidated into (the existing) driver_context data > > structure. I did this in the spirit of doing one thing at a time. If > > I am going to be picking a more appropriate name for the consolidated > > data structure; I might as well pick the final name that we want this > > unified driver abstraction to be called. > > Your final name is fine, it's the intermediate one I'm objecting to. Ok. > > How about 'struct hv_driver_context' instead? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Yes, as I think you need to go much finer as you were doing more than > > > one thing in these patches, and not describing them properly at all. > > > > > > Please try to redo them in a simpler manner, probably breaking it into > > > more steps, so we can properly review them. > > > > Based on your comments on intermediate names, would you recommend that > > as part of consolidating the driver abstractions, I also rename this combined > > state. > > Probably, if I understand what you are referring to. Please post code > so that I really know what you are doing :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h Regards, K. Y _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
