On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 14:23 +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote: >> On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Joe Perches wrote: >>> >>> Question about removing lustre typedefs. >>> >>> Various bits of lustre code use a mix of struct foo and foo_t. >>> >>> When would be an appropriate time to submit patches similar to >>> below that individually remove various typedefs from lustre code? >> I think now is as good time as any. >> the only small correction is those are LNet typedefs. >> While LNet is technically part of Lustre, it's a bit of a separate >> thing useful without Lustre too. >> >> I know James is working on cleaning up LNet, but I don't know if he has >> anything this would be conflicting at this moment or not. >> >> Thanks for the patches. I wonder if you are generating them automatically? >> Because it would be great if it also fixes the alignment issues > > It's pretty automatic. > > It's a trivial variant of the detypedef perl script I wrote awhile ago: > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.driver-project.devel/18603 > > > I think changing the alignment issues is better done in a > separate patch. but then it's two patches per change in a way. fixing one thing breaking the other warning-wise, that's why I typically try to make such cleanup patches not to introduce any new warnings. > > James isn't cc'd on these patches as he's not a listed > maintainer. Maybe he should be added for all of it or > some part of it? > for drivers/staging/lustre/lnet for the drivers/staging/lustre/lustre - the only remaining few typedefs I am going to address, it's just some of the code using them will go away or change the users significantly - that's why they were left out in the first round of lustre detypedefisation. Thanks. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
