From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/27] BKL: Push down BKL from do_new_mount() to the filesystems get_sb/fill_super operation Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:33:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20091103143333.GA2740@infradead.org> References: <1257156307-24175-1-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> <1257156307-24175-2-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> <20091102171147.GG21750@bolzano.suse.de> <20091103101212.GA20314@infradead.org> <20091103102509.GL21750@bolzano.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox , Linux-Kernel Mailinglist , Christian Borntraeger To: Jan Blunck Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:43118 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751475AbZKCOdc (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:33:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091103102509.GL21750@bolzano.suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:25:09AM +0100, Jan Blunck wrote: > > For the next spin please don't push it down to filesystems that > > obviously don't need it at all and just mention them in the patch > > description. For filesystems like xfs and btrfs that never used the BKL > > at all that should make life a bit simpler. > > My plan was to remove the BKL in the obvious cases in the followup patches > that are also included in the series. So should I just merge the obvious stuff > into one patch? Christian Borntraeger was actually requesting the opposite. He > wants to be able to bisect it to the patch that is removing the BKL. That > would be much simple with many small patches I think. Yes, but for most filesystems the BKL never made sense. Anywhere where it's non-obvious (or the maintainer wants it) make it a separate patch, but don't bother for things like xfs or btrfs.