Re: [PATCH 3/4] UBI: Fastmap: Care about the protection queue

[Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org>]

On 10/14/2014 4:02 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 15:21 +0300, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
>> Hi Artem/Richard
>>
>> I think your discussion here stopped being relevant to this specific
>> patch but went on to the fastmap feature design in general :)
>> This patch fixes a real bug in the current implementation of the
>> feature. What you're discussing requires a re-writing and re-design of
>> the feature. Perhaps this one can be merged and will be "fixed" later on
>> when you agree on how you would like FM to access WL data structures in
>> general?
>
> First of all, "re-writing and re-design of the feature" is an
> overstatement. So far this is on the "cleaning things up" side of the
> spectrum, closer to the "re-factoring" area.
>
> WRT "merge the fix now and improve later" - this is a good argument for
> an "inside a company" discussion, where the primary TTM is the driving
> factor.
>
> For the community TTM is a good thing, but quality comes first.
>
> Now, if this was about a regression, one could apply time pressure on
> the maintainer. But we are talking about a problem which was there from
> day 0.
>
> It is completely normal for the maintainer to push back various
> hot-fixes for the problem and request some reasonable re-factoring
> first. This is what I do. This is very very usual thing in the Linux
> community.
>
> So far I did not ask anything huge and unreasonable, I think. Just
> cleaner inter-subsystem APIs, less of the "fastmap uses the other
> subsystems' internals" kind of things.
>
> --
> Artem.
>

Ok, accepted. It was just a suggestion. I'm all for quality coming 
first, even if you were asking for something "huge".

Thanks,
Tanya Brokhman
-- 
Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project