From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Staging: hv: Cleanup hyperv_driver variable names Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 00:42:49 -0500 Message-ID: <20110302054249.GC28382@kroah.com> References: <1298686078-30945-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> <20110301025859.GG1663@kroah.com> <6E21E5352C11B742B20C142EB499E048016633@TK5EX14MBXC128.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6E21E5352C11B742B20C142EB499E048016633@TK5EX14MBXC128.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: KY Srinivasan Cc: "gregkh@suse.de" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" , Haiyang Zhang , Hank Janssen List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:44:11AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:59 PM > > To: KY Srinivasan > > Cc: gregkh@suse.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > > devel@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualization@lists.osdl.org; Haiyang Zhang; Hank > > Janssen > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Staging: hv: Cleanup hyperv_driver variable names > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:07:58PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > > > The title says it all. > > > > That's a horrible changelog comment. So bad that I would rather see an > > empty message than this one. Seriously, it give no description, and > > makes us think that the whole patch is obvious, when it really isn't. > > > > What did you change them to? > > What did you change them from? > > What was your motivation in changing them? > > How were you feeling when the names changed? > > > > Ok, maybe not the last one, but you get the idea. > > Greg, these changes (patches 1 through 6) change so much in this > sub-system that until these changes go in, our cleanup efforts are > stalled. Ok, but that's not my issue, it's yours :) And what's the rush? > That is the main reason I was so hasty in submitting these patches. > Clearly, I need to provide a better changelog comment; and I will. > Looking at your other comments, I am wondering if the granularity I > chose for breaking up the changes that had to be done is also a > significant part of the problem. If it is ok with you, I could > generate a patch that deals with all device related issues and a > patch that deals with all driver related issues. These patches > obviously will do more than one thing (however they will all be > related); but at least they won't have intermediate state that would > be objectionable. Let me know. Ick, no, you need to break these up into smaller pieces than just the 6 you did here, as you were still doing more than one thing per patch. Please make them simpler, not more complex. thanks, greg k-h