Removed two line;
Audit block driver
Audit scsi driver
They were added by us as part of the original code
Submission to make sure these drivers kept on working
Correctly with all the patches that came in from the
Community.
Added a new line to fix mostly insane camelcase naming
We are working on that right now, but it will take a bit
Due to the pervasive usage of it.
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hank Janssen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <[email protected]>
drivers/staging/hv/TODO | 3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/TODO b/drivers/staging/hv/TODO
index dbfbde9..e0bc3c8 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/hv/TODO
+++ b/drivers/staging/hv/TODO
@@ -12,8 +12,7 @@ TODO:
- use existing net_device_stats struct in network device
- checking for carrier inside open is wrong, network device API
confusion??
- - audit the block driver
- - audit the scsi driver
+ - Fix CamelCase naming conventions
Please send patches for this code to Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>,
Hank Janssen <[email protected]>, and Haiyang Zhang <[email protected]>.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:32:31PM +0000, Hank Janssen wrote:
>
> Removed two line;
> Audit block driver
> Audit scsi driver
> They were added by us as part of the original code
> Submission to make sure these drivers kept on working
> Correctly with all the patches that came in from the
> Community.
Um, no, those things still need to be done.
> Added a new line to fix mostly insane camelcase naming
> We are working on that right now, but it will take a bit
> Due to the pervasive usage of it.
That's fine, but it fits under the general "fix coding style issues".
Hm, that isn't spelled out, but it is implicit, I doubt this really
needs to be documented in the file, it's just common knowledge :)
thanks,
greg k-h
>>
>> Removed two line;
>> Audit block driver
>> Audit scsi driver
>> They were added by us as part of the original code
>> Submission to make sure these drivers kept on working
>> Correctly with all the patches that came in from the
>> Community.
>
>Um, no, those things still need to be done.
What additional things are expected? We solved the original
reason we added the lines, so I want to make sure we do
additional work as is expected. We are going through general
code cleanup, and the TODO file now.
>> Added a new line to fix mostly insane camelcase naming
>> We are working on that right now, but it will take a bit
>> Due to the pervasive usage of it.
>
>That's fine, but it fits under the general "fix coding style issues".
>
>Hm, that isn't spelled out, but it is implicit, I doubt this really
>needs to be documented in the file, it's just common knowledge :)
Want me to add a proper line item for that? Or drop this patch
completely for the time being?
Thanks,
Hank.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:22:19PM +0000, Hank Janssen wrote:
> >>
> >> Removed two line;
> >> Audit block driver
> >> Audit scsi driver
> >> They were added by us as part of the original code
> >> Submission to make sure these drivers kept on working
> >> Correctly with all the patches that came in from the
> >> Community.
> >
> >Um, no, those things still need to be done.
>
> What additional things are expected? We solved the original
> reason we added the lines
Um, I added the lines, see commit id
51b671f2f40c303fd4d18e346f63af62c9b1f622 for proof of that.
And as far as I can see, no such auditing has been done.
You need to pass the code by the proper subsystem maintainers (block and
scsi) before these items can be removed.
> , so I want to make sure we do additional work as is expected. We are
> going through general code cleanup, and the TODO file now.
>
> >> Added a new line to fix mostly insane camelcase naming
> >> We are working on that right now, but it will take a bit
> >> Due to the pervasive usage of it.
> >
> >That's fine, but it fits under the general "fix coding style issues".
> >
> >Hm, that isn't spelled out, but it is implicit, I doubt this really
> >needs to be documented in the file, it's just common knowledge :)
>
> Want me to add a proper line item for that? Or drop this patch
> completely for the time being?
I say just drop it, you know you have to fix this :)
thanks,
greg k-h
>> Want me to add a proper line item for that? Or drop this patch
>> completely for the time being?
>
>I say just drop it, you know you have to fix this :)
No problem, thanks!
Hank.
On a side note, when this becomes mainstream, could you give it a more
descriptive name than just "hv"? "Hv" already means at least two
possible things to me -- "hypervisor" or "high volume" -- neither of
which appear to be what this code is about.
Paul.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:20:56AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On a side note, when this becomes mainstream, could you give it a more
> descriptive name than just "hv"? "Hv" already means at least two
> possible things to me -- "hypervisor" or "high volume" -- neither of
> which appear to be what this code is about.
"hyperv" should be sufficient, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
>> On a side note, when this becomes mainstream, could you give it a more
>> descriptive name than just "hv"? "Hv" already means at least two
>> possible things to me -- "hypervisor" or "high volume" -- neither of
>> which appear to be what this code is about.
>
>"hyperv" should be sufficient, right?
>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h
I was thinking of using that, but would that confuse it with hypervisor
which is more of a general term? If the consensus is that it would not than
I am in favor of changing it to hyperv.
ms_hyperv would make it to long?
Thanks,
Hank.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:32:34PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:20:56AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > On a side note, when this becomes mainstream, could you give it a more
> > descriptive name than just "hv"? "Hv" already means at least two
> > possible things to me -- "hypervisor" or "high volume" -- neither of
> > which appear to be what this code is about.
>
> "hyperv" should be sufficient, right?
That sounds fine to me.
Paul.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:46:48PM +0000, Hank Janssen wrote:
> >> On a side note, when this becomes mainstream, could you give it a more
> >> descriptive name than just "hv"? "Hv" already means at least two
> >> possible things to me -- "hypervisor" or "high volume" -- neither of
> >> which appear to be what this code is about.
> >
> >"hyperv" should be sufficient, right?
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >greg k-h
>
> I was thinking of using that, but would that confuse it with hypervisor
> which is more of a general term? If the consensus is that it would not than
> I am in favor of changing it to hyperv.
>
> ms_hyperv would make it to long?
I don't believe "hyperv" is a generally-used abbreviation of
"hypervisor". You could do "ms_hyperv" if you like, but I wouldn't
regard the "ms_" prefix as essential.
Paul.
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:32:34PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > "hyperv" should be sufficient, right?
>
> That sounds fine to me.
>
> Paul.
It sounds good to me as well. It's the trademark for Microsoft's virtualization platform.
- Haiyang