From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753898AbaIXOyq (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:54:46 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:53754 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753337AbaIXOyo (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:54:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:54:41 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ming Lei Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] block: remove blk_init_flush() and its pair Message-ID: <20140924145441.GA9713@lst.de> References: <1410786675-7761-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <1410786675-7761-7-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <20140924102012.GB19078@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:49:00PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > Simpler to merge, but more difficult to split. It is for easier review, > since patch 5 is a bit big and each patch still does one thing. I defintively find the current version hard to review - it moves code around a few times before it setlles, so it requires a lot of memory or applying patches one after another to a tree. And while this might be useful in some cases this is one where merging the patches doesn't seem to have much of a downside. We'd still move various fields into a structure, and add helpers to init it, just with a tiny bit more changes on the initialization side. That being said if you really prefer the split that's fine with me, but it doesn't really seem helpful.