[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/6] Staging: hv: Unify the hyperv driver abstractions
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:50:00AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > > > "struct driver_context"? Oh please no.
> > >
> > > Greg; this is the patch that consolidates the state in struct hv_driver into
> > > struct driver_context. In the spirit of doing one thing in a patch;
> > > other relevant changes are made in:
> > > Patch[5/6]: Changes the name driver_context to hyperv_driver
> > > Patch[6/6]: Cleanup all variable names that refer to struct hyperv_driver.
> >
> > Yes, but on its own, this patch is wrong, that is not a valid name, even
> > if it is a "temporary" name.
> Greg, the temporary name happens to be the name currently in use in the
> code - this is not the name I introduced.

There is not a "struct driver_context" in the code that I see today, or
am I missing something? That's my objection here, please don't use that
name, it's not valid for a subsystem to use, even for a tiny bit.

> Think of this as the surviving data structure after the hv_driver
> state is consolidated into (the existing) driver_context data
> structure. I did this in the spirit of doing one thing at a time. If
> I am going to be picking a more appropriate name for the consolidated
> data structure; I might as well pick the final name that we want this
> unified driver abstraction to be called.

Your final name is fine, it's the intermediate one I'm objecting to.

How about 'struct hv_driver_context' instead?

> > > > I realize that you are hopefully going to later rename this to something
> > > > else, but remember, a few patches back you thought that the "ctx" name
> > > > wasn't nice. And here you go resuscitating it from the graveyard of
> > > > pointy bits.
> > >
> > > As I noted in a different email, may be the granularity I chose in breaking up
> > > these patches is causing all this confusion.
> >
> > Yes, as I think you need to go much finer as you were doing more than
> > one thing in these patches, and not describing them properly at all.
> >
> > Please try to redo them in a simpler manner, probably breaking it into
> > more steps, so we can properly review them.
> Based on your comments on intermediate names, would you recommend that
> as part of consolidating the driver abstractions, I also rename this combined
> state.

Probably, if I understand what you are referring to. Please post code
so that I really know what you are doing :)


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-03 07:25    [W:0.075 / U:29.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site