From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757831Ab3BKQFJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:05:09 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:49386 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757622Ab3BKQFH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:05:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:05:15 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Samuel Ortiz Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Tomas Winkler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [char-misc-next 01/11 V2] mei: bus: Initial MEI bus type implementation Message-ID: <20130211160515.GC1534@kroah.com> References: <1360326504-17041-1-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@intel.com> <20130208235341.GA24127@kroah.com> <20130210032555.GG20996@sortiz-mobl> <201302111150.26785.arnd@arndb.de> <20130211134612.GO20996@sortiz-mobl> <20130211143051.GA1017@kroah.com> <20130211155854.GV20996@sortiz-mobl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130211155854.GV20996@sortiz-mobl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:58:54PM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 06:30:51AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 02:46:12PM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > > You already have a 'struct mei_device', which refers to the PCI device > > > > that owns the bus, and has clients attached to it. While it may be > > > > a little confusing to people that already worked with the current > > > > mei code, I think it would help to rename the existing 'mei_device' > > > > to 'mei_host' or something else that feels appropriate, and introduce > > > > the new structure as 'mei_device' derived from 'struct device', again > > > > matching what most other subsystems do. > > > I understand, and I agree it would make sense. As we're aiming at having this > > > patchset merged during the next merge window, would it be ok to have this > > > renaming phase as a follow up patch ? > > > > Do you mean for 3.9? > That's what I meant, yes. > > > Sorry, my trees are now closed for new stuff like this for 3.9, > Out of curiosity, when do you close your trees for new stuff ? Is there a > fixed timeframe ? Normally around the -rc7 or -rc8 timeframe. thanks, greg k-h