From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLOW_WORK: Fix the CONFIG_MODULES=n case Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:13:08 +0000 Message-ID: <31860.1259680388@redhat.com> References: <20091201142611.GA1183@elte.hu> <25668.1259675528@redhat.com> Reply-To: Linux filesystem caching discussion list Cc: cluster-devel@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091201142611.GA1183@elte.hu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > this slow_work_wait_for_items() function should move into the #ifdef > block too. I disagree: I want to keep the variable declaration blocks small; I'd rather not even put the inline functions in there that I did. I only did that because you wanted the #ifdef count reduced. > In terms of .32 i guess it's OK too and the fix is needed - but i'd really > not have done even the preceding changes - why again did we need > /proc/slow_work_rq via 8fba10a The slow_work_rq debugging interface is not strictly necessary, but it proved a useful debugging tool. I emailed Linus before I went on holiday and asked if he was willing to take these not-strictly-necessary patches on which other patches were built, or whether he'd prefer me to drop those patches and adjust the rest. > and why did it have to happen right before the final kernel? Because it did. That's when I finished my set of patches and published them before going on holiday for a week - and that in turn was related to when I came up with a better test case. Sometimes coincidences do happen. > If then it should have been done in debugfs - we dont need yet another > /proc ABI. Possibly. That just means we have a debugfs ABI instead of a proc ABI - it needs maintaining either way. On the other hand, it can be moved there easily and the docs changed, and doing so makes a reasonable amount of sense - except that debugfs isn't normally mounted by at least Fedora for some reason. David