From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0B8C433E0 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2271C206B7 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="cfMnq8OE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728326AbgFOOc1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:32:27 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:37843 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728304AbgFOOc0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:32:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1592231544; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+e0vcThfzTts6S3eIRs8aOtZDU8sba/dbrLmjLmO/Pc=; b=cfMnq8OEB+cB3O1ZbK15qWUaSriczalev7pLHu3QO3iVcb1zB0HTaX7TTGgGSvWWWmfUL+ aSH/ob2froQzhS6X99ITZMq98iHcZQFZHIxl2GwuQsOwxPD2ACYTb6Z3zV4Jf+C81jlCWR e3yHxX+aXLAmvkYjZ6OcMXdjQh0+CI4= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-19-g3weaOzlMgu-gMJZ6mbqog-1; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:32:20 -0400 X-MC-Unique: g3weaOzlMgu-gMJZ6mbqog-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BAEC18FE893; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (dhcp-41-2.bos.redhat.com [10.18.41.2]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7332C24D; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:31:21 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 29/30] xfs: factor xfs_iflush_done Message-ID: <20200615143121.GB12452@bfoster> References: <20200604074606.266213-1-david@fromorbit.com> <20200604074606.266213-30-david@fromorbit.com> <20200609131249.GC40899@bfoster> <20200609221431.GK2040@dread.disaster.area> <20200610130833.GB50747@bfoster> <20200611001622.GN2040@dread.disaster.area> <20200611140709.GB56572@bfoster> <20200615014957.GU2040@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200615014957.GU2040@dread.disaster.area> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:49:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:07:09AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > TBH, I think this patch should probably be broken down into two or three > > independent patches anyways. > > To what end? The patch is already small, it's simple to understand > and it's been tested. What does breaking it up into a bunch more > smaller patches actually gain us? > I think you overestimate the simplicity to somebody who doesn't have context on whatever upcoming changes you have. I spent more time staring at this wondering what the list filtering logic was for than I would have needed to review the entire patch were those changes not included. > It means hours more work on my side without any change in the end > result. It's -completely wasted effort- if all I'm doing this for is > to get you to issue a RVB on it. Fine grained patches do not come > for free, and in a patch series that is already 30 patches long > making it even longer just increases the time and resources it costs > *me* to maintian it until it is merged. > Note that I said "two or three" and then sent you a diff that breaks it down into two. That addresses my concern. > > What's the issue with something like the > > appended diff (on top of this patch) in the meantime? If the multiple > > list logic is truly necessary, reintroduce it when it's used so it's > > actually reviewable.. > > Nothing. Except it causes conflicts further through my patch set > which do the work of removing this AIL specific code. IOWs, it just > *increases the amount of work I have to do* without actually > providing any benefit to anyone... > Reapply the list filtering logic (reverting the same diff I already sent) at the beginning of your upcoming series that uses it. I sent the diff as a courtesy because you seem to be rather frustrated wrt to any suggestion to change this series, but this seems like a standard case of misplaced code to me with a simple fix. The fact that this is used somehow or another in a series that is so far unposted and unreviewed is not a valid justification IMO. I really don't understand what the issue is here wrt to moving the changes to where they're used. Brian > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com >