Re: [PATCH 1/5] Forking ext4 filesystem from ext3 filesystem

[Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=gb18030; format=flowed, Size: 1607 bytes --]

Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:17:02 -0700
> Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Fork(copy) ext4 filesystem from ext3 filesystem. Rename all functions in ext4 from ext3_xxx() to ext4_xxx().
> 
> 
> It would have been nice to spend a few hours cleaning up ext3 and JBD
> before doing this.  The code isn't toooo bad, but there are number of
> coding style problems, whitespace screwups, incorrect comments, missing
> comments, poorly-chosen variable names and all of that sort of thing.
>
> One the fs has been copied-and-pasted, it's much harder to address these
> things: either need to do it twice, or allow the filesystems to diverge, or
> not do it.
>
Andrew, thanks for taking a close look this series of changes.

I agree with you that the timing is right, to do the clean up now rather 
than later. I would give it a try. If I could get more help from more 
code reviewer, it probably makes the effort a lot easier. For those 
issues you pointed out : coding style problem£¬incorrect comments, 
poorly-named variables  -- do you have any specific examples in your mind?

> Also, -mm presently has two patches pending against fs/jbd/ and nine pending
> against fs/ext3/.  We should get all those things merged before taking the
> copy.
> 
So probably the right thing to do is keep the ext4 patches against mm 
tree instead of rc three?

> Also, JBD is presently feeding into submit_bh() buffer_heads which span two
> machine pages, and some device drivers spit the dummy.  It'd be better to
> fix that once, rather than twice..  

Okay, I will look at it.


Thanks,
Mingming