From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] more gdth patches for your amusement Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:20:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20070925082027.GA9587@infradead.org> References: <20070721203410.GA1004@havoc.gtf.org> <1189865576.3339.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> <46F85578.70503@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:43550 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753668AbXIYIUh (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:20:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46F85578.70503@garzik.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , achim_leubner@adaptec.com, Andrew Morton On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 08:25:28PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >OK, we've had these competing patch sets floating around for two months > >now. Christoph and Jeff, can we get agreement on which is going in? > > Well, my opinion is > > 1) When judging by total amount of positive improvement, Christoph's > patches are superior -- he has more overall cleanups than I do. > > 2) When judging by likelihood of inducing breakage, I feel my changes > are superior. My gdth changes tightly adhere to the > equivalent-transformation method of shuffing code around, enabling > further improvements. IOW, I resisted the urge to make cleanups and fix > insignificant, pre-existing bugs during the transformations. > > 3) I am utterly unmotivated to merge the two patchsets. Someone should > make an executive decision, pull one patchset, and drop the other. My > coding "mood" has swung from cleaning up code to writing new SAS drivers :) Go ahead with your patches as I don't have time working on mine right now. I'll port them ontop of your patches when I get time for it.