[PATCH 00/17] drm: rename various struct members "dev" -> "drm"

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Maxime, 

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 01:17:43PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:39:40PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:23:50PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > > after most feedback for my series "drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev
> > > > to drm_dev"[1] was positive in principle, here comes a new series.
> > > 
> > > I find it obnoxious to send a new series within 24 hours of the first,
> > > while the discussion is still in progress, and it's a misrepresentation
> > > of the in-progress dicussion to say most of the feedback was positive.
> > > 
> > > This is not the way to reach consensus.
> > 
> > Let me tell you I didn't had any obnoxious intentions when sending this
> > new series. I honestly still think that the feedback was mostly positive
> > to the idea to get rid of struct drm_device *dev. Most discussion was
> > about splitting the series and the right name to use instead of "dev".
> 
> And then you have a former and current maintainers that tell you that
> they'd prefer not to merge it at all.

I went back to the previous thread rereading the replies I got yesterday
(i.e. the ones I was aware when I started to respin the series). By then
following people stated their opinion:

 - Paul Kocialkowski
   Is happy with the status quo
   naming: drm_dev > { drmdev, drm }
 - Thomas Zimmermann
   All data structures should be converted
   naming: drm > *
 - Javier Martinez Canillas
   Generally in favour (also via irc)
   Wants a single patch
   naming: drm > drm_dev > dev
 - Russell King
   Sent a "Reviewed-by, Thanks"
 - Christan König
   Wants a single patch
   naming: don't care
 - Maxime Ripard
   Wants a single patch
 - Sui Jingfeng
   no union
   naming: { drm, ddev } > drm_dev > dev
 - Luben Tuikov
   Wants a single patch
   naming: drm_dev > { drm, dev }
 - Jani Nikula
   unnecessary change.(is this a "no" or a "don't care"?)
   naming: drm > *
 - Sean Paul
   doesn't like this change

I admit I'm not aware about the roles here, but up to then only Sean
Paul wrote a clear no and maybe Jani Nikula a small one. I interpreted
Paul Kocialkowski's replay as indifferent to the renaming. All others
were in favour or only criticised details and naming.

What did I miss (apart from today's replies which indeed are more
negative:

 - Thierry Reding 
   Agreed to Jani Nikula that this change is
   unnecessary, also understood that for non-DRM people it might be
   confusing.
   naming: dev > drm > *
 - Thomas Zimmermann
   Agreed to Sean Paul about the too high downsides
 - Geert Uytterhoeven
   In favour (also before via irc)
)?

> Ignoring those concerns

I'm really surprised by this suggestion. Either I really missed
something, or I'd like to ask these maintainers to communicate in a more
obvious way. If I send a series and I get feedback like "If you rename
drm_crtc.dev, you should also address *all* other data structures." (by
Thomas Zimmermann) or "When you automatically generate the patch (with
cocci for example) I usually prefer a single patch instead." (by
Christan König) then I would expect that if they oppose the underlying
idea of the series they would say so, too. I'm sorry, I cannot read a
concern (to the underlying idea) from these replies. And so I addressed
the feedback about the details with a new series to have an updated base
for the discussion.

> and then sending a new version right away is, if not obnoxious,
> definitely aggressive.

If this is how you experience my submission even after I tried to
explain my real intentions, I'm sorry. And I'm sure there is a deep
misunderstanding somewhere.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20230713/a46cc2a5/attachment.sig>