On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 19:14 +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote: > On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 14:23 +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote: > > > On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > Question about removing lustre typedefs. > > > > > > > > Various bits of lustre code use a mix of struct foo and foo_t. > > > > > > > > When would be an appropriate time to submit patches similar to > > > > below that individually remove various typedefs from lustre code? > > > I think now is as good time as any. > > > the only small correction is those are LNet typedefs. > > > While LNet is technically part of Lustre, it's a bit of a separate > > > thing useful without Lustre too. > > > > > > I know James is working on cleaning up LNet, but I don't know if he has > > > anything this would be conflicting at this moment or not. > > > > > > Thanks for the patches. I wonder if you are generating them automatically? > > > Because it would be great if it also fixes the alignment issues > > It's pretty automatic. > > > > It's a trivial variant of the detypedef perl script I wrote awhile ago: > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.driver-project.devel/18603 > > > > I think changing the alignment issues is better done in a > > separate patch. > but then it's two patches per change in a way. fixing one thing breaking > the other warning-wise, that's why I typically try to make such cleanup > patches not to introduce any new warnings.
detypedef frequently introduces > 80 column lines. It's much easier to verify this way without introducing changes like rewrapping to 80 column. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
