linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 6/6] Staging: hv: Cleanup hyperv

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6E21E5352C11B742B20C142EB499E048016633@TK5EX14MBXC128.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2011 01:44:11 +0000
From:	KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	"gregkh@...e.de" <gregkh@...e.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	"virtualization@...ts.osdl.org" <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	"Hank Janssen" <hjanssen@...rosoft.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 6/6] Staging: hv: Cleanup hyperv_driver variable names

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@...ah.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:59 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: gregkh@...e.de; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> devel@...uxdriverproject.org; virtualization@...ts.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:
> > 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. 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.

Regards,

K. Y

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/