lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH ] Staging: hv: Hyper-V driver cleanup
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:24:57AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
> > -----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:
> > > 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.

pervasive patches are fine, just remember, "each patch can only do one
thing". It sounds like you want to do at least 2 patches here, if not
a lot more. Look at my past patches when I combined things and removed
a whole layer for how to do this in a very incremental, piece-by-piece
fashion (i.e, move one field over at a time until the structure is gone,
and then remove it entirely.)

> > 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.

linux-next should be farther along than -rc1 as -rc6 is currently out.

confused,

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-25 01:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans