Re: [Suspend2][ 0/9] Extents support.

Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-06-29T21:11:31Z

Hi,

On Thursday 29 June 2006 07:44, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On Thursday 29 June 2006 15:19, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On 6/29/06, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net> wrote:
> > > Sure, I know where I'd be headed, but it would be a huge waste of time
> > > and effort.
> >
> > Perhaps to you Nigel. For the rest of us reviewing your patches, it's
> > much better. I suspect it would be better for the users down the road
> > as well. I don't know if you realize it, but what you're doing now
> > is, "here's a big chunck of code, take it or leave it". And at least
> > historically people have had hard time doing getting stuff merged like
> > that.
>
> I did try really hard not to do that (big chunk of code, take it or leave it).
> That's why it's split up into so many little patches. The problem seems to be
> that it's not split up in the way some people wanted, rather than not split
> up at all. I want to make it easier on you guys, but it just seems to me like
> regardless of what I do, it's not the right thing.

I think the problem is that you want it merged all at once, and it's too much
code for doing so. The splitting is a separate thing - previously the patches
were too big, now they are too small, but from the reviewer's point of view
it's about the same: you can't get a grip on what's going on and why.

> I can understand wanting small changes to swsusp to transform it into
> suspend2, but I also understand that I've spent approximately 5 years of
> developing from the point Pavel forked the code base until today, and part of
> that has been two complete reworkings of the way in which the data is stored
> and the thing operates - irreducible complexity that just doesn't fit into
> the incremental change model. So I'm trying to do what seems to me to be the
> next best thing. Having arranged functions that deal with particular parts of
> the system into individual files, I've broken the files up into logical parts
> and submitted them in groups. If we consider the more primitive parts first,
> then move to the increasingly abstract operations (or vice versa), I think
> we'll have a good approach with what's already done.

No. The additional work on your part _is_ _needed_ so that _other_ _people_
may feel comfortable with your code in the kernel. Now, apparently, they are
not, for various reasons, and you're just refusing to help them.

Greetings,
Rafael