From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751702Ab3LKVU5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:20:57 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:49665 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203Ab3LKVU4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:20:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:22:38 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, linus.walleij@linaro.org, ashutosh.dixit@intel.com, kbuild test robot Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] kernfs: s/sysfs_dirent/kernfs_node/ and rename its friends accordingly Message-ID: <20131211212238.GC20491@kroah.com> References: <1386789118-24733-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1386789118-24733-2-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1386789118-24733-2-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:11:53PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > kernfs has just been separated out from sysfs and we're already in > full conflict mode. Nothing can make the situation any worse. Let's > take the chance to name things properly. > > This patch performs the following renames. > > * s/sysfs_elem_dir/kernfs_elem_dir/ > * s/sysfs_elem_symlink/kernfs_elem_symlink/ > * s/sysfs_elem_attr/kernfs_elem_file/ > * s/sysfs_dirent/kernfs_node/ > * s/sd/kn/ in kernfs proper > * s/parent_sd/parent/ > * s/target_sd/target/ > * s/dir_sd/parent/ > * s/to_sysfs_dirent()/rb_to_kn()/ > * misc renames of local vars when they conflict with the above > > Because md, mic and gpio dig into sysfs details, this patch ends up > modifying them. All are sysfs_dirent renames and trivial. While we > can avoid these by introducing a dummy wrapping struct sysfs_dirent > around kernfs_node, given the limited usage outside kernfs and sysfs > proper, I don't think such workaround is called for. Ugh, why are those drivers digging into sysfs core bits anyway? I'll look and see if they should be fixed up as well, as I really doubt a "normal" driver should ever care about this type of thing... thanks, greg k-h