On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 04:02:57PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > 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. That would have been nice to see, instead of it "leaking" like this :( thanks, greg k-h
