From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fuse: rename some files and clean up Makefile
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:33:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YaTWtgSrtSDCU1ti@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7277c1ee-6f7b-611d-180d-866db37b2bd7@loongson.cn>
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@redhat.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
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fuse: rename some files and clean up Makefile
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:33:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YaTWtgSrtSDCU1ti@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7277c1ee-6f7b-611d-180d-866db37b2bd7@loongson.cn>
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@redhat.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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-29 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-27 10:13 [PATCH v2] fuse: rename some files and clean up Makefile Tiezhu Yang
2021-11-29 9:23 ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-11-29 10:19 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2021-11-29 10:19 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2021-11-29 13:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-11-29 13:33 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2021-11-29 13:33 ` Vivek Goyal
2021-12-01 10:23 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2021-12-01 10:23 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YaTWtgSrtSDCU1ti@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.