RE: [PATCH 1/6] Staging: hv: Unify hyper-v device abstractions

[KY Srinivasan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:35 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Haiyang Zhang; Hank
> Janssen
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Staging: hv: Unify hyper-v device abstractions
> 
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:05:30PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > Hyper-V drivers have supported two device abstractions.
> > This patch implements a single device abstraction.
> 
> "This patch" or "This patch series"?

Greg, If you recall, last week I had sent a single patch that did what these 6 patches do.
While I agree, the description could have been more informative; I have tried to 
follow the guidelines I got in terms of what should  go into each patch:

The first set of 3 patches (1 through 3) deal with the device related issues:
Patch 1: Combines the state in hv_device into vm_device to create a 
single device abstraction called vm_device.
Patch 2: Changes the name of vm_device to hyperv_device.
Patch 3: Cleanup the names of variables that refer to hyperv_device
 
  
Next set of 3 patches (4 through 6) deal with the driver related issues:

Patch 4: Combines the state maintained in  hv_driver into driver_context to
Create a single driver abstraction called driver_context.

Patch 5: Renames the driver context to hyperv_driver.

Patch 6: Cleanup the names of variables that refer to hyperv_driver.

I am beginning to wonder if perhaps I chose the wrong granularity in splitting
up these patches.

Regards,

K. Y 

> 
> > This simplifies the code and avoids duplication
> > of state.
> 
> This patch is confusing, you are renaming structures (from hv_ to vm_)
> which I didn't think you wanted to do.
> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Hank Janssen <hjanssen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/hv/blkvsc.c        |   17 ++++---
> >  drivers/staging/hv/blkvsc_drv.c    |   14 +++---
> >  drivers/staging/hv/channel_mgmt.c  |    1 +
> >  drivers/staging/hv/channel_mgmt.h  |    2 +-
> >  drivers/staging/hv/netvsc.c        |   55 ++++++++++++-----------
> >  drivers/staging/hv/netvsc.h        |    2 +-
> >  drivers/staging/hv/netvsc_api.h    |   12 +++---
> >  drivers/staging/hv/netvsc_drv.c    |   28 +++++-------
> >  drivers/staging/hv/rndis_filter.c  |   19 ++++----
> >  drivers/staging/hv/storvsc.c       |   37 ++++++++--------
> >  drivers/staging/hv/storvsc_api.h   |    4 +-
> >  drivers/staging/hv/storvsc_drv.c   |   21 ++++-----
> >  drivers/staging/hv/vmbus.h         |   13 +++---
> >  drivers/staging/hv/vmbus_api.h     |   29 ++----------
> >  drivers/staging/hv/vmbus_drv.c     |   84 +++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  drivers/staging/hv/vmbus_private.h |   12 +++---
> >  16 files changed, 157 insertions(+), 193 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/blkvsc.c b/drivers/staging/hv/blkvsc.c
> > index 7c8729b..ecface3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/hv/blkvsc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/blkvsc.c
> > @@ -35,7 +35,8 @@ static const struct hv_guid g_blk_device_type = {
> >  	}
> >  };
> >
> > -static int blk_vsc_on_device_add(struct hv_device *device, void
> *additional_info)
> > +static int blk_vsc_on_device_add(struct vm_device *device,
> > +				void *additional_info)
> 
> Huh?  What was this change for?  80 column issues for function
> definitions is not a big deal, if any, and should not be burried in a
> patch that claims to do something else.
> 
> Still totally confused,
> 
> greg k-h

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