On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:44:11AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:59 PM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: gregkh@suse.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
devel@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualization@lists.osdl.org; Haiyang Zhang; Hank
Janssen
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Staging: hv: Cleanup hyperv_driver variable names

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:07:58PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:

quoted

The title says it all.

That's a horrible changelog comment.  So bad that I would rather see an
empty message than this one.  Seriously, it give no description, and
makes us think that the whole patch is obvious, when it really isn't.

What did you change them to?
What did you change them from?
What was your motivation in changing them?
How were you feeling when the names changed?

Ok, maybe not the last one, but you get the idea.

Greg, these changes (patches 1 through 6) change so much in this
sub-system that until these changes go in, our cleanup efforts are
stalled.

Ok, but that's not my issue, it's yours :)

And what's the rush?

That is the main reason I was so hasty in submitting these patches.
Clearly, I need to provide a better changelog comment; and I will.
Looking at your other comments, I am wondering if the granularity I
chose for breaking up the changes that had to be done  is also a
significant part of the problem. If it is ok with you, I could
generate a  patch that deals with all device related issues and a
patch that deals with all driver related issues. These patches
obviously will  do more than one thing (however they will all be
related); but at least they won't have intermediate state that would
be objectionable. Let me know.

Ick, no, you need to break these up into smaller pieces than just the 6
you did here, as you were still doing more than one thing per patch.

Please make them simpler, not more complex.

thanks,

greg k-h