From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p1E0YZ7x087906 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:34:36 -0600 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4AD7F1561356 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:37:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 9wJJyONmi1fkFrew for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:37:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:36:59 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] libxfs: reintroduce old xfs_repair radix-tree code Message-ID: <20110214003659.GH2559@dastard> References: <1294649091-27174-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1294649091-27174-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1297274713.2513.27.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1297274713.2513.27.camel@doink> 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: Alex Elder Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:05:13PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > 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. I think that is a fine way to proceed ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs