From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/46] fs: dcache scale hash Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:42:58 +1100 Message-ID: <20101209234258.GB9925@dastard> References: <3eb32695435ae6c5fd1601467d78b560b5058e2b.1290852959.git.npiggin@kernel.dk> <20101209060911.GB8259@dastard> <20101209062801.GA3749@amd> <20101209081756.GE8259@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:53:27PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> Like I said, there are infinite cleanups or improvements you can make. > >> It does not particularly matter that they happen before or after the > >> scaling work, except if there are classes of APIs that the new locking > >> model can no longer support. > > > > We do plenty of cleanups when changing code when the result gives us > > simpler and easier to understand code. It's a trivial change that, > > IMO, makes the code more consistent and easier to follow. > > Unrelated "cleanups" in the same patch as non trivial locking change > is stupid. So put it in another prepartory patch. It makes the locking changes easier to understand... > Necessary changes to prevent bad ugliness resulting, or preventing > repeated steps for the particular changes, etc. of course. Killing un > related functions no. Ok, I get the picture. You don't want a code review, you want a rubber stamp. Find someone else to get it from. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com