Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 07:15:30AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [mailto:kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com]
> > Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes
> > 
> > > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [mailto:kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com]
> > > > Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH V7 1/4] mm: frontswap: swap data structure changes
> > >
> > > Hi Kamezawa-san --
> > >
> > > Domo arigato for the review and feedback!
> > >
> > > > Hmm....could you modify mm/swapfile.c and remove 'static' in the same patch ?
> > >
> > > I separated out this header patch because I thought it would
> > > make the key swap data structure changes more visible.  Are you
> > > saying that it is more confusing?
> > 
> > Yes. I know you add a new header file which is not included but..
> > 
> > At reviewing patch, I check whether all required changes are done.
> > In this case, you turned out the function to be externed but you
> > leave the function definition as 'static'. This unbalance confues me.
> > 
> > I always read patches from 1 to END. When I found an incomplete change
> > in patch 1, I remember it and need to find missng part from patch 2->End.
> > This makes my review confused a little.
> > 
> > In another case, when a patch adds a new file, I check Makefile change.
> > Considering dependency, the patch order should be
> > 
> > 	[patch 1] Documentaion/Config
> > 	[patch 2] Makefile + add new file.
> > 
> > But plesse note: This is my thought. Other guys may have other idea.
> 
> I think that is probably a good approach.  I will try to use it
> for future patches.  But since this frontswap patchset is already
> on V7, I hope it is OK if I continue to organize it for V8 the same
> as it has been, as it might be confusing to previous reviewers
> to change the organization now.

Nah, that is what part of the review process is - keep us on our toes.