linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fuse: rename some files and clean up Makefile

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]

Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:33:42 -0500
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:     Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fuse: rename some files and clean up Makefile

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:27:17PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 06:19 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 06:13:22PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > No need to generate virtio_fs.o first and then link to virtiofs.o, just
> > > rename virtio_fs.c to virtiofs.c and remove "virtiofs-y := virtio_fs.o"
> > > in Makefile, also update MAINTAINERS. Additionally, rename the private
> > > header file fuse_i.h to fuse.h, like ext4.h in fs/ext4, xfs.h in fs/xfs
> > > and f2fs.h in fs/f2fs.
> > 
> > There are two separate changes in this patch (virtio_fs.c -> virtiofs.c
> > and fuse_i.h -> fuse.h). A patch series with two patches would be easier
> > to review and cleaner to backport.
> > 
> > I'm happy with renaming virtio_fs.c to virtiofs.c:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
> > 
> 
> Hi Stefan and Miklos,
> 
> Thanks for your reply, what should I do now?
> 
> (1) split this patch into two separate patches to send v3;
> (2) just ignore this patch because
> "This will make backport of bugfixes harder for no good reason."
> said by Miklos.

I agree with Miklos that there does not seem to be a very strong reason
to rename. It probably falls in the category of nice to have cleanup. But
it will also make backports harder. So I also like the idea of not making
this change.

Vivek