On Sunday 29 November 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 11/29/2009 04:09 AM, Stefan Assmann wrote: > > On 28.11.2009 13:43, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> On 11/28/2009 06:54 AM, Stefan Assmann wrote: > >>> From: Stefan Assmann<sassmann@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Changing occurrences of variants of PCI-X and PCIe to the PCI-SIG > >>> terms listed in the "Trademark and Logo Usage Guidelines". > >>> http://www.pcisig.com/developers/procedures/logos/Trademark_and_Logo_Usage_Guidelines_updated_112206.pdf > >>> > >>> Additionally some renames of Gb/s to GT/s where appropriate, concerns > >>> PCIe. > >>> > >>> This is a followup to the discussion at: > >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/14/107 > >>> Patch is based on 2.6.32-rc8. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Assmann<sassmann@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> NAK, this clearly introduces bugs and changes sysfs output (ABI). > >> > >> Typically this type of change is pointless churn that creates far more > >> problems than it "solves." > > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > I see you point in not liking this kind of change. What kind of cleanup > > would be ok in your opinion? > > Think about this from an engineering perspective. This patch is driven > not by any real technical need, but more by marketing and trademark folks. > > The absolute best case scenario for this patch is that nothing changes, > from an implementation and behavior standpoint. The worst case, of > course, is that it introduces bugs (which it does). > > You also incur the standard costs of any kernel change: you've just > made the diff between, for example, a vendor kernel's foo_driver.c and > upstream's foo_driver.c a lot larger, and more difficult to discern > real, technical changes to the code. > > Of course, we change the kernel every day -- but we also know that > change itself has cost, and a lot of code changes for cosmetic reasons > have the potential for greater negative costs, and fewer positive benefits. > > Next, IMO, you don't have any idea how maintainers will react to this > patch, because you CC'd so few of them. People who perform tree-wide > changes should take the time to CC __every__ relevant maintainer. If > you are changing somebody's code, you should always let them know about > it, and give them an opportunity to review the change. > scripts/get_maintainer.pl can help with this. > > So, while the PCI maintainer might agree with the nomenclature change, > he is not the most qualified person to state that your changes have no > effect on drivers/edac/ppc4xx_edac.c, for example. > > Finally, split your patch up. I would suggest starting with 100% > comment changes that are guaranteed with mathematical certainty to not > change the compiler-generated code at all. That will make the remaining > changes much easier to review, if they are in separate patches from the > comment-only changes. FWIW, I agree with everything said and I think it might be a good idea to put something like this into Documentation/ for people wanting to make similar changes in future. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
