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

[Christian König]

Am 13.07.23 um 16:10 schrieb 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

Well I don't care about the naming, but I care about avoiding additional 
unnecessary work.

So I'm not very keen about the naming change either because I think that 
this is just irrelevant.

Regards,
Christian.

>   - 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
>