----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Andrew Stiegmann" <astiegmann@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > pv-drivers@xxxxxxxxxx, vm-crosstalk@xxxxxxxxxx, cschamp@xxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:16:39 AM > Subject: Re: [vmw_vmci 11/11] Apply the header code to make VMCI build > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:20:43AM -0700, Andrew Stiegmann wrote: > > > The kernel style is to use lower_case for everything. > > > So this would become: > > > > > > vmci_device_get() > > > > > > This is obviously a very general comment and applies everywhere. > > > > I wish I could lower case these symbols but VMCI has already > > existed > > outside the mainline Linux tree for some time now and changing > > these > > exported symbols would mean that other drivers that depend on VMCI > > (vSock, vmhgfs) would need to change as well. One thought that > > did > > come to mind was exporting both VMCI_Device_Get and vmci_device_get > > but that would likely just confuse people. So in short I have made > > function names lower case where possible, but exported symbols > > could > > not be changed. > > Not true at all. You want those drivers to be merged as well, right? > So they will need to have their functions changed, and their code as > well. As previously mentioned VMware is working on upstreaming our vSock driver (one of a few drivers that uses vmw_vmci). However there are no plans to upstream the other drivers that depend on vmw_vmci. Because of this these symbols can not change. > Just wait until we get to the "change your functionality around" > requests, those will require those drivers to change. Right now we > are > at the "silly and obvious things you did wrong" stage of the review > process :) > > So please fix these, and also, post these drivers as well, so we can > see > how they interact with the core code. > > Actually, if you are going to need lots of refactoring for these > drivers, and the core, I would recommend putting this all in the > staging > tree, to allow that to happen over time. That would ensure that your > users keep having working systems, and let you modify the interfaces > better and easier, than having to keep it all out-of-tree. > > What do you think? We will discuss this internally and let you know. > greg k-h > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
