From: Michael Goldish <mgoldish@redhat.com>
To: Feng Yang <fyang@redhat.com>
Cc: autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH 4/5] KVM test: kvm_subprocess: rename get_command_status_output() and friends
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:10:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CC7EC9D.7090408@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <997631151.1590611288159160057.JavaMail.root@zmail04.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
On 10/27/2010 07:59 AM, Feng Yang wrote:
>
> ----- "Michael Goldish" <mgoldish@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> From: "Michael Goldish" <mgoldish@redhat.com>
>> To: autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: "Michael Goldish" <mgoldish@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:49:43 AM GMT +08:00 Beijing / Chongqing / Hong Kong / Urumqi
>> Subject: [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH 4/5] KVM test: kvm_subprocess: rename get_command_status_output() and friends
>>
>> get_command_status_output() -> cmd_status_output()
>> get_command_output() -> cmd_output()
>> get_command_status() -> cmd_status()
> Any reason for these change? coding style issue?
> If there is no necessary reason, we better do not change them. These functions is widely used, the change may introduce errors.
> Changing interface will bring some workload and risk. At least we need change all our internal case when merging with upstream.
I think raising exceptions in these functions (patch 1 in the series)
causes much more significant compatibility issues than just renaming
them. Since we're making lots of changes throughout the code anyway
because of the exceptions, I thought this would be a good time to rename
the functions.
We can keep both the old names and the new names, so new tests can be
merged upstream and then modified later to use the new names. Does that
sound OK?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-27 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <2034814473.1590591288159137734.JavaMail.root@zmail04.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
2010-10-27 5:59 ` [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH 4/5] KVM test: kvm_subprocess: rename get_command_status_output() and friends Feng Yang
2010-10-27 9:10 ` Michael Goldish [this message]
2010-10-27 12:04 ` [Autotest] " Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
2010-10-26 16:49 [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH 1/5] KVM test: kvm_subprocess: raise exceptions in kvm_shell_session and kvm_expect Michael Goldish
2010-10-26 16:49 ` [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH 2/5] KVM test: kvm_monitor.py: store attributes in QMPCmdError Michael Goldish
2010-10-26 16:49 ` [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH 3/5] KVM test: add utility functions start_windows_service() and stop_windows_service() Michael Goldish
2010-10-26 16:49 ` [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH 4/5] KVM test: kvm_subprocess: rename get_command_status_output() and friends Michael Goldish
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=4CC7EC9D.7090408@redhat.com \
--to=mgoldish@redhat.com \
--cc=autotest@test.kernel.org \
--cc=fyang@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox