From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p19I3JSr018250 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:03:20 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] libxfs: reintroduce old xfs_repair radix-tree code From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <1294649091-27174-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> References: <1294649091-27174-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1294649091-27174-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:05:13 -0600 Message-ID: <1297274713.2513.27.camel@doink> Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:44 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > The current kernel code uses radix trees more widely than the > previous code, so for the next sync we need radix tree support in > libxfs. Pull the old radix tree code out the xfs_repair git history > and move it into libxfs to simplify the kernel code sync. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner OK, I actually reviewed this code, even though it had already been present in the source tree prior to commit: 379397bf9... ("repair: use a btree instead of a radix tree for the prefetch queue"). And I have some suggestions, and I have at least one thing that I think is a bug. I also notice that this code apparently formed the basis of the kernel's implementation. That's good. It's probably worth reviewing the kernel version's history to see if there are any bug fixes that ought to be brought back into this code (and vice-versa). All that being said, I think the right thing to do is to include this change as-is as a commit. It includes both "radix-tree.c" and "radix-tree.h" as identical copies of what was removed (though each now resides in a different directory from before), thereby preserving the provenance of the code. Then, after it's committed, I can offer my suggested changes, or even just implement and propose them myself. So unless you disagree with this approach I think it's fine to commit it as you originally posted it. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs