Re: [RFC PATCH 08/20] famfs: Add famfs_internal.h

Jonathan Cameron
2024-02-27T10:28:50Z

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:35:17 -0600
John Groves <John@groves.net> wrote:

> On 24/02/26 12:48PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:41:52 -0600
> > John Groves <John@Groves.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Add the famfs_internal.h include file. This contains internal data
> > > structures such as the per-file metadata structure (famfs_file_meta)
> > > and extent formats.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: John Groves <john@groves.net>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Build this up as you add the definitions in later patches.
> >
> > Separate header patches just make people jump back and forth when trying
> > to review. Obviously more work to build this stuff up cleanly but
> > it's worth doing to save review time.
> >
>
> Ohhhhkaaaaay. I think you're right, just not looking forward to
> all that rebasing.

:) Patch mangling is half the fun of upstream development :)

>
> > Generally I'd plumb up Kconfig and Makefile a the beginning as it means
> > that the set is bisectable and we can check the logic of building each stage.
> > That is harder to do but tends to bring benefits in forcing clear step
> > wise approach on a patch set. Feel free to ignore this one though as it
> > can slow things down.
>
> I'm not sure that's practical. A file system needs a bunch of different
> kinds of operations
> - super_operations
> - fs_context_operations
> - inode_operations
> - file_operations
> - dax holder_operations, iomap_ops
> - etc.
>
> Will think about the dependency graph of these entities, but I'm not sure
> it's tractable...

Sure. There's a difference though between doing something useful (or
even successfully loading) and being able to build it at intermediate steps.
I'm only looking for buildability.

If not possible, even with a few stubs, empty ops structures etc
then fair enough.

Jonathan