On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 6:44 AM Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [..] > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > We're addressing the naming in the next version as well. We've had > > > several people reject the name virtual bus and we've narrowed in on > > > "ancillary bus" for the new name suggesting that we have the core > > > device that is attached to the primary bus and one or more sub- > > > devices > > > that are attached to the ancillary bus. Please let us know what you > > > think of it. > > > > I'm thinking that the primary person who keeps asking you to create > > this > > "virtual bus" was not upset about that name, nor consulted, so why > > are > > you changing this? :( > > > > Right now this feels like the old technique of "keep throwing crap at > > a > > maintainer until they get so sick of it that they do the work > > themselves..." > > Hi Greg, > > It wasnt our intention to frustrate you with the name change but in the > last exchange you had specifically asked for signed-off-by's from other > Intel developers. In that process, one of the recent feedback from some > of them was about the name being misleading and confusing. > > If you feel strongly about the keeping name "virtual bus", please let > us know and we can circle back with them again. Hey Greg, Feel free to blame me for the naming thrash it was part of my internal review feedback trying to crispen the definition of this facility. I was expecting the next revision to come with the internal reviewed-by and an explanation of all the items that were changed during that review. Ranjani, is the next rev ready to go out with the review items identified? Let's just proceed with the current direction of the review tags that Greg asked for, name changes and all, and iterate the next details on the list with the new patches in hand.
