Re: [lustre-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/3] staging: lustre: detypedef

[Drokin, Oleg]

On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 14:23 +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> 
>>> Question about removing lustre typedefs.
>>> 
>>> Various bits of lustre code use a mix of struct foo and foo_t.
>>> 
>>> When would be an appropriate time to submit patches similar to
>>> below that individually remove various typedefs from lustre code?
>> I think now is as good time as any.
>> the only small correction is those are LNet typedefs.
>> While LNet is technically part of Lustre, it's a bit of a separate
>> thing useful without Lustre too.
>> 
>> I know James is working on cleaning up LNet, but I don't know if he has
>> anything this would be conflicting at this moment or not.
>> 
>> Thanks for the patches. I wonder if you are generating them automatically?
>> Because it would be great if it also fixes the alignment issues
> 
> It's pretty automatic.
> 
> It's a trivial variant of the detypedef perl script I wrote awhile ago:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.driver-project.devel/18603
> 
> 
> I think changing the alignment issues is better done in a
> separate patch.

but then it's two patches per change in a way. fixing one thing breaking
the other warning-wise, that's why I typically try to make such cleanup
patches not to introduce any new warnings.
> 
> James isn't cc'd on these patches as he's not a listed
> maintainer.  Maybe he should be added for all of it or
> some part of it?
> 

for drivers/staging/lustre/lnet

for the drivers/staging/lustre/lustre - the only remaining
few typedefs I am going to address, it's just some of the code using
them will go away or change the users significantly - that's why
they were left out in the first round of lustre detypedefisation.

Thanks.