* Re: [PATCH v2] fuse: rename some files and clean up Makefile
[not found] ` <7277c1ee-6f7b-611d-180d-866db37b2bd7@loongson.cn>
@ 2021-11-29 13:33 ` Vivek Goyal
2021-12-01 10:23 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Vivek Goyal @ 2021-11-29 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiezhu Yang
Cc: Miklos Szeredi, Miklos Szeredi, linux-kernel, virtualization,
Stefan Hajnoczi, linux-fsdevel
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:27:17PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 06:19 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 06:13:22PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > No need to generate virtio_fs.o first and then link to virtiofs.o, just
> > > rename virtio_fs.c to virtiofs.c and remove "virtiofs-y := virtio_fs.o"
> > > in Makefile, also update MAINTAINERS. Additionally, rename the private
> > > header file fuse_i.h to fuse.h, like ext4.h in fs/ext4, xfs.h in fs/xfs
> > > and f2fs.h in fs/f2fs.
> >
> > There are two separate changes in this patch (virtio_fs.c -> virtiofs.c
> > and fuse_i.h -> fuse.h). A patch series with two patches would be easier
> > to review and cleaner to backport.
> >
> > I'm happy with renaming virtio_fs.c to virtiofs.c:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> >
>
> Hi Stefan and Miklos,
>
> Thanks for your reply, what should I do now?
>
> (1) split this patch into two separate patches to send v3;
> (2) just ignore this patch because
> "This will make backport of bugfixes harder for no good reason."
> said by Miklos.
I agree with Miklos that there does not seem to be a very strong reason
to rename. It probably falls in the category of nice to have cleanup. But
it will also make backports harder. So I also like the idea of not making
this change.
Vivek
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] fuse: rename some files and clean up Makefile
[not found] ` <7277c1ee-6f7b-611d-180d-866db37b2bd7@loongson.cn>
2021-11-29 13:33 ` Vivek Goyal
@ 2021-12-01 10:23 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2021-12-01 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiezhu Yang
Cc: Miklos Szeredi, Miklos Szeredi, linux-kernel, virtualization,
linux-fsdevel, Vivek Goyal
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1202 bytes --]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:27:17PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 06:19 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 06:13:22PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > No need to generate virtio_fs.o first and then link to virtiofs.o, just
> > > rename virtio_fs.c to virtiofs.c and remove "virtiofs-y := virtio_fs.o"
> > > in Makefile, also update MAINTAINERS. Additionally, rename the private
> > > header file fuse_i.h to fuse.h, like ext4.h in fs/ext4, xfs.h in fs/xfs
> > > and f2fs.h in fs/f2fs.
> >
> > There are two separate changes in this patch (virtio_fs.c -> virtiofs.c
> > and fuse_i.h -> fuse.h). A patch series with two patches would be easier
> > to review and cleaner to backport.
> >
> > I'm happy with renaming virtio_fs.c to virtiofs.c:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> >
>
> Hi Stefan and Miklos,
>
> Thanks for your reply, what should I do now?
>
> (1) split this patch into two separate patches to send v3;
> (2) just ignore this patch because
> "This will make backport of bugfixes harder for no good reason."
> said by Miklos.
Miklos' point makes sense to me and he is the FUSE maintainer.
Stefan
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread