Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert

[Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>]

On 08/31/2015 02:42 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 02:25:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Kent, can we cut down on the victim playing? I said it should have been
>> posted, did I not? And usually patches like that ARE always posted, but this
>> beat the series of patches that it was a pre-patch for. Hence it just didn't
>> get posted, and that was a mistake, after a private discussion where it
>> ended up being cherry-picked for inclusion. Even for a trivial patch like
>> this. But it's not the end of the world, it's not like I rewrote your
>> architecture or grand caching design.
>
> You're backpedalling and trying not to admit it. Look, would you do it again or
> not? Because yes of course I'm going to call you out on it if you think this is
> an acceptable thing to do, which is certainly what you started off saying.

Kent, this is starting to get into playground territory. Should it have 
been posted/cc'ed to you? Yes. Do I think it's a big deal that it 
wasn't, given the nature of the patch? No. Is/was the patch the right 
thing to do? Yes.

>> Grow up. We should revert a patch cleaning up macros with returns in them,
>> but you won't really let us in on why?
>>
>> Unless we can turn this into a REAL (and technical) discussion on why we
>> should revert to the old code, I'm done spending time on this thread.
>
> Because what's the point of having a technical discussion if you're checking in
> code behind my back, and you refuse to say you won't do so again in the future?

Get to the point.

> And calling it "just a cleanup" is disingenuous. You're making a real semantic
> change to the code, which never mind the pros and cons of the patch itself,
> means I have now have to rebase ~1000 patches on top of it and it will _silently
> break, in a nasty way_ any patches that make use of closures - you just made
> a lot of work for me, especially if I want to keep my tree bisectable.
>
> You remember how patches are supposed to go through the maintainer? This is part
> of the reason. Are you starting to see why I'm in such a bad mood?

You still forgot the part where you explained the very good reasons for 
the why the code looked like that.

-- 
Jens Axboe