From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] NFSD: Add helper functions for __write_ports() Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:42:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20081229184233.GC13756@fieldses.org> References: <20081212215340.24332.88416.stgit@ingres.1015granger.net> <20081212215742.24332.36578.stgit@ingres.1015granger.net> <20081225041523.GA17998@fieldses.org> <722B1063-9532-4F1C-9214-C7D9DFF3CA3F@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: aime.le-rouzic@bull.net, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([141.211.133.115]:39261 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751089AbYL2Smh (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:42:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <722B1063-9532-4F1C-9214-C7D9DFF3CA3F@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:04:29PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Dec 24, 2008, at Dec 24, 2008, 11:15 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 04:57:42PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> Clean up: I'd like to refactor __write_ports() to make it easier to >>> understand and maintain. Introduce a set of helper functions to >>> handle the details of the __write_ports() function. >>> >>> New helpers are not used yet. >> >> As stated in http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=122894134032274&w=2, I'd >> prefer that new code be introduced with its callers where reasonable, >> so >> in this case I'd rather this patch be combined with the following. > > Right, I wrote these patches well before the referenced e-mail, and > split them this way because the diff of the combined changes is well- > nigh impossible to read. > > What I may end up doing instead is splitting these helpers out one patch > at a time. That should make for more legible patches. Yes, I think that's the more natural split. --b.