From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Namhyung Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] misc cleanups for RAID5 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:30:37 +0900 Message-ID: <1308814237.1338.18.camel@leonhard> References: <1308718230-2536-1-git-send-email-namhyung@gmail.com> <20110623105554.19c5fe09@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110623105554.19c5fe09@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids 2011-06-23 (=EB=AA=A9), 10:55 +1000, NeilBrown: > Hi, > thanks for these. >=20 > I have applied the first and the last. >=20 > The two "factor out" patches conflict with some much more substantia= l > refactoring I have been doing in raid5.c. I have just pushed all of= that > into my for-next branch: >=20 > git://neil.brown.name/md for-next >=20 > so you can use that as a basis for any further review. Thanks. I'll have a look at that. >=20 > The r5_for_each_bio() patch I'm not 100% sure I'm happy with, and in= any > case it would have conflicted with my other changes too. > I'm not fond of macros that hide details that could be important. A > "for_each" macro that purely and simply walks through a list is fine= =2E A > "for_each" macro that does anything more complicated I start to have= doubts > about... > However if you really do like it and want to rebase it on the for-ne= xt > branch I'll have another look and think harder about it. Maybe I'l= l end up > liking it after all, but no promises. I don't have any strong opinion on it. It was just a suggestion that I think it helps the code cleaner but ... Anyway, thanks for your comment. --=20 Regards, Namhyung Kim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html