From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [RFC] next cycle fun: ->release() API change Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 18:22:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20130511172242.GP25399@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20130509050343.GD25399@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39067 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753104Ab3EKRWo (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 May 2013 13:22:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:05:05AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ugh. You know what? I'd almost prefer to just do it as a single big > commit, *without* the extra churn of then also renaming things. > Because the renaming will just be painful and result in *more* > problems, and quite frankly, this particular ABI change is "benign" in > the sense that unconverted drivers will just cause warnings - the code > will still compile (module -Werror, of course, which some > architectures use) and still work perfectly fine (modulo crazy C paper > standard issues that have nothing to do with actual reality). > > In fact, the "it still works fine, just complains" makes it perfecly > reasonable to even split it up into multiple independent commits. So > rather than do the stupid renaming, I'd be perfectly happy with one > commit that just changes "int ("release)(..)" to "void (*release)(..)" > and then a boatload of "remove return value from release in > drivers/block/*" kind of commits that do the conversion. > > Because renaming really doesn't buy us anything but pain. Umm... I'd rather go the whole way and get rid of inode argument as well, while we are at it. It's completely redundant and it's unused in very large majority of the instances.