Re: [PATCH 00/17] drm: rename various struct members "dev" -> "drm"

[Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4643 bytes --]

Hi,

On Thu 13 Jul 23, 16:10, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Maxime, 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 01:17:43PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:39:40PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:23:50PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > > > after most feedback for my series "drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev
> > > > > to drm_dev"[1] was positive in principle, here comes a new series.
> > > > 
> > > > I find it obnoxious to send a new series within 24 hours of the first,
> > > > while the discussion is still in progress, and it's a misrepresentation
> > > > of the in-progress dicussion to say most of the feedback was positive.
> > > > 
> > > > This is not the way to reach consensus.
> > > 
> > > Let me tell you I didn't had any obnoxious intentions when sending this
> > > new series. I honestly still think that the feedback was mostly positive
> > > to the idea to get rid of struct drm_device *dev. Most discussion was
> > > about splitting the series and the right name to use instead of "dev".
> > 
> > And then you have a former and current maintainers that tell you that
> > they'd prefer not to merge it at all.
> 
> I went back to the previous thread rereading the replies I got yesterday
> (i.e. the ones I was aware when I started to respin the series). By then
> following people stated their opinion:
> 
>  - Paul Kocialkowski
>    Is happy with the status quo
>    naming: drm_dev > { drmdev, drm }

Just to clarify, I am against the change (not sure this is what you meant by
happy with the status quo) but if the majority is in favor then I prefer to
have the member named drm_dev.

>  - Thomas Zimmermann
>    All data structures should be converted
>    naming: drm > *
>  - Javier Martinez Canillas
>    Generally in favour (also via irc)
>    Wants a single patch
>    naming: drm > drm_dev > dev
>  - Russell King
>    Sent a "Reviewed-by, Thanks"
>  - Christan König
>    Wants a single patch
>    naming: don't care
>  - Maxime Ripard
>    Wants a single patch
>  - Sui Jingfeng
>    no union
>    naming: { drm, ddev } > drm_dev > dev
>  - Luben Tuikov
>    Wants a single patch
>    naming: drm_dev > { drm, dev }
>  - Jani Nikula
>    unnecessary change.(is this a "no" or a "don't care"?)
>    naming: drm > *
>  - Sean Paul
>    doesn't like this change
> 
> I admit I'm not aware about the roles here, but up to then only Sean
> Paul wrote a clear no and maybe Jani Nikula a small one. I interpreted
> Paul Kocialkowski's replay as indifferent to the renaming.

To reiterate: I am against the change, not indifferent.

Cheers,

Paul

> All others
> were in favour or only criticised details and naming.
> 
> What did I miss (apart from today's replies which indeed are more
> negative:
> 
>  - Thierry Reding 
>    Agreed to Jani Nikula that this change is
>    unnecessary, also understood that for non-DRM people it might be
>    confusing.
>    naming: dev > drm > *
>  - Thomas Zimmermann
>    Agreed to Sean Paul about the too high downsides
>  - Geert Uytterhoeven
>    In favour (also before via irc)
> )?
> 
> > Ignoring those concerns
> 
> I'm really surprised by this suggestion. Either I really missed
> something, or I'd like to ask these maintainers to communicate in a more
> obvious way. If I send a series and I get feedback like "If you rename
> drm_crtc.dev, you should also address *all* other data structures." (by
> Thomas Zimmermann) or "When you automatically generate the patch (with
> cocci for example) I usually prefer a single patch instead." (by
> Christan König) then I would expect that if they oppose the underlying
> idea of the series they would say so, too. I'm sorry, I cannot read a
> concern (to the underlying idea) from these replies. And so I addressed
> the feedback about the details with a new series to have an updated base
> for the discussion.
> 
> > and then sending a new version right away is, if not obnoxious,
> > definitely aggressive.
> 
> If this is how you experience my submission even after I tried to
> explain my real intentions, I'm sorry. And I'm sure there is a deep
> misunderstanding somewhere.
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
> 
> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |



-- 
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]