I'd suggest not sending out patches like this.
If the patch is largely a rename one, and sent out for review, just use
"git diff -M -p --stat --summary", because it's going to be a *lot* more
reviewable that way.
Yeah, it means that people need git to apply it, but by now we can
probably take that for granted - and more importantly, even if they don't
have git installed: when you send out of RFC, aren't you looking for
commentary more than people to apply and test it?
And then the patch saying that it's a rename (with perhaps changes to the
guard #ifdef thing) would be a lot more clear. Nobody is going to read a
patch that is 2800 lines of mostly create/delete with presumably almost no
actual changes?
Linus
--