From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Goldish 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 Message-ID: <4CC7EC9D.7090408@redhat.com> References: <997631151.1590611288159160057.JavaMail.root@zmail04.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Feng Yang Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13840 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759737Ab0J0JK4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:10:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <997631151.1590611288159160057.JavaMail.root@zmail04.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/27/2010 07:59 AM, Feng Yang wrote: > > ----- "Michael Goldish" wrote: > >> From: "Michael Goldish" >> To: autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: "Michael Goldish" >> 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?