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

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

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"?

> 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@microsoft.com>
> Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hank Janssen <hjanssen@microsoft.com>
> 
> ---
>  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