Re: [PATCH] change PCI nomenclature according to PCI-SIG

[Stefan Assmann <sassmann@redhat.com>]

On 29.11.2009 13:54, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 11/29/2009 04:09 AM, Stefan Assmann wrote:
>> On 28.11.2009 13:43, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2009 06:54 AM, Stefan Assmann wrote:
>>>> From: Stefan Assmann<sassmann@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> Changing occurrences of variants of PCI-X and PCIe to the PCI-SIG
>>>> terms listed in the "Trademark and Logo Usage Guidelines".
>>>> http://www.pcisig.com/developers/procedures/logos/Trademark_and_Logo_Usage_Guidelines_updated_112206.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Additionally some renames of Gb/s to GT/s where appropriate, concerns
>>>> PCIe.
>>>>
>>>> This is a followup to the discussion at:
>>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/14/107
>>>> Patch is based on 2.6.32-rc8.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Assmann<sassmann@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> NAK, this clearly introduces bugs and changes sysfs output (ABI).
>>>
>>> Typically this type of change is pointless churn that creates far more
>>> problems than it "solves."
>>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> I see you point in not liking this kind of change. What kind of cleanup
>> would be ok in your opinion?
> 
> Think about this from an engineering perspective.  This patch is driven
> not by any real technical need, but more by marketing and trademark folks.
> 
> The absolute best case scenario for this patch is that nothing changes,
> from an implementation and behavior standpoint.  The worst case, of
> course, is that it introduces bugs (which it does).
> 
> You also incur the standard costs of any kernel change:  you've just
> made the diff between, for example, a vendor kernel's foo_driver.c and
> upstream's foo_driver.c a lot larger, and more difficult to discern
> real, technical changes to the code.
> 
> Of course, we change the kernel every day -- but we also know that
> change itself has cost, and a lot of code changes for cosmetic reasons
> have the potential for greater negative costs, and fewer positive benefits.
> 
> Next, IMO, you don't have any idea how maintainers will react to this
> patch, because you CC'd so few of them.  People who perform tree-wide
> changes should take the time to CC __every__ relevant maintainer.  If
> you are changing somebody's code, you should always let them know about
> it, and give them an opportunity to review the change.
> scripts/get_maintainer.pl can help with this.
> 
> So, while the PCI maintainer might agree with the nomenclature change,
> he is not the most qualified person to state that your changes have no
> effect on drivers/edac/ppc4xx_edac.c, for example.
> 
> Finally, split your patch up.  I would suggest starting with 100%
> comment changes that are guaranteed with mathematical certainty to not
> change the compiler-generated code at all.  That will make the remaining
> changes much easier to review, if they are in separate patches from the
> comment-only changes.

Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it and will try to stick to
your suggestions.

  Stefan
--
Stefan Assmann         | Red Hat GmbH
Software Engineer      | Otto-Hahn-Strasse 20, 85609 Dornach
                       | HR: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243
                       | GF: Brendan Lane, Charlie Peters,
sassmann at redhat.com |     Michael Cunningham, Charles Cachera