Re: [PATCH 11/46] fs: dcache scale hash

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:42:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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...

I didn't change that, though, the ordering of locking unrelated
dentries and the code is already in rename code and is not touched
during this patch set.


> > 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.

Of course I want code review. I am not going to just do everything
you say that I don't agree with, but I will explain why every time
(as I have done to all your points).

I would prefer more in-depth review than from someone who doesn't know
d_lock protects d_flags, but any and all help is welcome. Even minor
nitpicking or cleanups are welcome if they are relevant to the patches.

Thanks,
Nick

PS. don't accuse me of not wanting a code review, because you're just
projecting. To paraphrase you:

 I don't have to justify myself to you, nick, only the maintainers, so
 I'm not answering.

In response to my questions.