Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:54:48 -0800 | From | Jakub Kicinski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/5] bonding: rename bond components |
| |
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:47:58 -0500 Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:44 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:04:31 -0500 Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > The bonding driver's use of master and slave, while largely understood > > > in technical circles, poses a barrier for inclusion to some potential > > > members of the development and user community, due to the historical > > > context of masters and slaves, particularly in the United States. This > > > is a first full pass at replacing those phrases with more socially > > > inclusive ones, opting for bond to replace master and port to > > > replace slave, which is congruent with the bridge and team drivers. > > > > If we decide to go ahead with this, we should probably also use it as > > an opportunity to clean up the more egregious checkpatch warnings, WDYT? > > > > Plan minimum - don't add new ones ;) > > Hm. I hadn't actually looked at checkpatch output until now. It's... > noisy here. But I'm pretty sure the vast majority of that is from > existing issues, simply reported now due to all the renaming.
I don't think all of them:
- tx_slave = slaves->arr[hash_index % + tx_port = ports->arr[hash_index % count];
It should be relatively trivial to find incremental warnings.
AFAIR checkpatch has a mode to run on a file, not on a patch, so you can run it before and after and diff.
> I can > certainly take a crack at cleanups, but I'd be worried about missing > another merge window trying to sort all of these, when they're not > directly related.
TBH I haven't followed the previous discussions too closely, as much as I applaud the effort I'm not signing up for reviewing 3.5kLoC of renames, so I hope you can find someone to review this for you.
Another simple confidence booster would be a confirmation that given patches do not change the object code.
| |