From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/3] NLM add resume procfs file
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:24:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080201172431.GE4798@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47A0A946.5030405@redhat.com>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:43:50AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> + rc = failover_parse_ip(file, buf, size, &server_ip);
>>> + if (rc < 0)
>>> + return rc;
>>> return nlmsvc_failover_ip(server_ip);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Looks great, but it would fit more logically with the previous patch.
>> (If you know you're going to end up using this code in two places, may
>> as well write it that way from the start.)
>>
>
> The original unlock patch did have a shared routine for this purpose.
> After review, its code structure got changed a little bit. Since the
> revised version has non-trivial amount of testing efforts behind it, I
> think it is better to do the change here, instead of the well-tested
> unlock patch.
>
> On the other hand, I cut the resume patch into three pieces mostly for
> review purpose. Do you think it would be easier (for your git tree
> works) that I combine these three small patches into a big resume patch
> after all the review comments are incorporated into the code ?
As long as they each compile and run without introducing any new bugs
(even temporarily) along the way, then I'll almost always prefer more
smaller patches to fewer larger ones.
--b.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>
Cc: cluster-devel@redhat.com, NFS list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] NLM add resume procfs file
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:24:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080201172431.GE4798@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47A0A946.5030405@redhat.com>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:43:50AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> + rc = failover_parse_ip(file, buf, size, &server_ip);
>>> + if (rc < 0)
>>> + return rc;
>>> return nlmsvc_failover_ip(server_ip);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Looks great, but it would fit more logically with the previous patch.
>> (If you know you're going to end up using this code in two places, may
>> as well write it that way from the start.)
>>
>
> The original unlock patch did have a shared routine for this purpose.
> After review, its code structure got changed a little bit. Since the
> revised version has non-trivial amount of testing efforts behind it, I
> think it is better to do the change here, instead of the well-tested
> unlock patch.
>
> On the other hand, I cut the resume patch into three pieces mostly for
> review purpose. Do you think it would be easier (for your git tree
> works) that I combine these three small patches into a big resume patch
> after all the review comments are incorporated into the code ?
As long as they each compile and run without introducing any new bugs
(even temporarily) along the way, then I'll almost always prefer more
smaller patches to fewer larger ones.
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-01 17:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-25 5:15 [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 1/3] NLM add resume procfs file Wendy Cheng
2008-01-25 5:15 ` Wendy Cheng
2008-01-29 2:19 ` [Cluster-devel] " J. Bruce Fields
2008-01-29 2:19 ` J. Bruce Fields
2008-01-29 2:29 ` [Cluster-devel] " J. Bruce Fields
2008-01-29 2:29 ` J. Bruce Fields
2008-01-30 16:43 ` [Cluster-devel] " Wendy Cheng
2008-01-30 16:43 ` Wendy Cheng
2008-02-01 17:24 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2008-02-01 17:24 ` J. Bruce Fields
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080201172431.GE4798@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.