From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] btrfs: relocation: Refactor build_backref_tree()
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 21:26:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200302202622.GY2902@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <99a7a002-65bb-6077-7303-c4076c34e05e@gmx.com>
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 09:00:43AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/2/28 下午11:45, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:56:42PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> This branch can be fetched from github:
> >> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/backref_cache_new
> >
> > This is based on v5.6-rc1, you should base on something more recent.
> > There are many non-trivial conflicts at patch 5 so I stopped there but
> > if you and I like to get the pathes merged, the branch needs to be in a
> > state where it's not that hard to apply the patches.
>
> Because it looks like current misc-next is not a good place to do proper
> testing, and it's undergoing frequent updates.
Well yes, that's the point and has been like that for a long time. It's
a development base that should be reasonably stable, IOW I add patches
there when the branch itself passes fstests and the to-be merged patches
pass as well.
For the 'reasonably stable' part, fixups and additional functional
updates should be minimal but they happen as this is branch that more
people start to test, unlike some random patchsets.
> Thus I choose the latest rc when I started the development.
Yes but you should also have rebased each week so the latest rc is
still the latest one.
> Currently the branch is only for review and my local testing, I just
> want to make sure that everything works fine before rebasing them to
> misc-next.
Maybe I have missed you saying it's for review and independent testing,
for cleanups this should make no difference once the branch is ported on
top of current devel queue (misc-next).
I still think that rebasing once a week on top of current rc+misc-next
is feasible and should save time to all of us in the future.
> Anyway, next time I'll mention the basis, and explicitly shows that I'll
> do the rebase (and retest) if you want to try merge.
Yes mentioning the patch base helps in case it's not something that
others would expect, which in most cases is misc-next.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-02 20:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-26 5:56 [PATCH 00/10] btrfs: relocation: Refactor build_backref_tree() Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 01/10] btrfs: backref: Introduce the skeleton of btrfs_backref_iter Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 02/10] btrfs: backref: Implement btrfs_backref_iter_next() Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 03/10] btrfs: relocation: Use btrfs_backref_iter infrastructure Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 04/10] btrfs: relocation: Rename mark_block_processed() and __mark_block_processed() Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 13:56 ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 05/10] btrfs: relocation: Refactor tree backref processing into its own function Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 06/10] btrfs: relocation: Use wrapper to replace open-coded edge linking Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 07/10] btrfs: relocation: Specify essential members for alloc_backref_node() Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 08/10] btrfs: relocation: Remove the open-coded goto loop for breadth-first search Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 09/10] btrfs: relocation: Refactor the finishing part of upper linkage into finish_upper_links() Qu Wenruo
2020-02-26 5:56 ` [PATCH 10/10] btrfs: relocation: Refactor the useless nodes handling into its own function Qu Wenruo
2020-02-28 15:45 ` [PATCH 00/10] btrfs: relocation: Refactor build_backref_tree() David Sterba
2020-02-29 1:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-03-02 20:26 ` David Sterba [this message]
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=20200302202622.GY2902@twin.jikos.cz \
--to=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox