Thread (5 messages) 5 messages, 2 authors, 2011-02-25

RE: [PATCH ] Staging: hv: Hyper-V driver cleanup

From: KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Date: 2011-02-25 00:25:00
Also in: lkml

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@suse.de]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 6:46 PM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; devel@linuxdriverproject.org;
virtualization@lists.osdl.org; Haiyang Zhang; Hank Janssen
Subject: Re: [PATCH ] Staging: hv: Hyper-V driver cleanup

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:20:58PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
quoted
This patch cleans up (a lot of the) naming issues that
various reviewers have noted. It also gets rid of
some unnecessary layering in the code.
Whenever you have a patch description that says "It also..." you know
you need to break this up into smaller, logical pieces.
The name change was related to the layering issue. For instance I combined the 
Vm_device and hv_device abstractions to build the hyperv_device abstraction.
Likewise, I combined the driver_context and the hv_driver abstractions to build the 
the hyperv_driver abstraction. Would breaking this patch up into two patches,
one dealing with the device abstraction consolidation and the other dealing with
the consolidation of driver abstractions satisfy your concern. Even if I partition this 
patch along these lines, it will still be a large set of patches; since these changes 
are pervasive. 
As it is, I can not take this patch.

Please break it up into logical patches, each doing only one thing, so
we can properly review it.
quoted
At the lowest
level, we have one abstraction for representing
a hyperv device (struct hyperv_device) and one
abstraction for representing a hyperv driver
(struct hyperv_driver). This collapses an unnecessary
layering that existed in the code for historical reasons.
While the patch is large, it was generated by a very
mechanical process (global search and replace). The code
compiles cleanly and I have tested this code on a 2.6.38
kernel.
There is no 2.6.38 kernel yet, so I find this very hard to believe :)
My mistake; I did not specify the full output of uname -a on the box 
that I tested this code. This box is running the LINUX-NEXT kernel :
2.6.38-rc1-0.2-default.

Regards,

K. Y 

thanks,

greg k-h
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help