[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110302054249.GC28382@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 00:42:49 -0500
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.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
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:44:11AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
>
>
> > -----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.
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
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists