From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751391AbeEVNip (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2018 09:38:45 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f196.google.com ([209.85.223.196]:45717 "EHLO mail-io0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751199AbeEVNim (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2018 09:38:42 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoAffD0i6YwiMylA1pn8csmfoD9/BT5mzupS9DWUTGY53+UcrNUgGjOmZNAZQ6AChY+e9hpNw== Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] acpi: apei: Rename ghes_severity() to ghes_cper_severity() To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Borislav Petkov , alex_gagniuc@dellteam.com, austin_bolen@dell.com, shyam_iyer@dell.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Tony Luck , Tyler Baicar , Will Deacon , James Morse , Shiju Jose , "Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" , Dongjiu Geng , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20180521135003.32459-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20180521135003.32459-2-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> From: "Alex G." Message-ID: <53d0ba88-6929-a7cf-6c3e-4ca389f7249a@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 08:38:39 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/22/2018 03:55 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote: >> ghes_severity() is a misnomer in this case, as it implies the severity >> of the entire GHES structure. Instead, it maps one CPER value to a >> GHES_SEV* value. ghes_cper_severity() is clearer. > > It looks like the *real* reason for this change is that you > re-introduce ghes_severity() as a different function in the second > patch. /me holds fist at Borislav > There are a couple of reasons to avoid that, one of them being that > people will now have to remember what the function did in which kernel > versions. So? > Also, the current name is good enough IMO, Two other reviewers were extremely confused by the vague name, so no, this is not good enough. > so I'm not going to apply this patch.