LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adrian Bunk <>
To: Theodore Tso <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Andreas Dilger <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] fs/jbd/journal.c: cleanups
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:12:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 06:49:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:12:29AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Nack.  I don't object to un-exporting journal_update_superblock(), 
> > > because that is pretty internal, but the other functions are intended 
> > > specifically for use by code outside of JBD.  For example, the journal 
> > > checksum patch for ext3/4 uses journal_set_features() to turn on 
> > > features in the JBD superblock.
> > > 
> > > Similarly, for 64-bit support in ext4 uses journal_set_features() to 
> > > set a 64-bit feature flag in the journal superblock.
> > 
> > that's an invalid excuse for the benefit of out-of-tree forks: reality 
> > is that you can export those functions in the "journal checksum patch" 
> > just fine. So you cannot 'nack' a sensible patch on that ground and no 
> > maintainer does it on that ground. Once you get your stuff upstream, you 
> > can re-add the export.
> I'm going to NACK it as well.  This kind of code churn where we make
> symbols static only to make them non-static again in an existing ext4
> tree is exactly the sort of needless code churn that makes patches
> start to conflict and where we need different patches depending on
> whether it is intended for -mm or linux-next or mainline.
> I think we really have gotten WAY to doctrinaire on the if there are
> no in-tree users, it MUST be static.  This is exactly the sort of
> mindless rules that cause the patch conflicts that have been causing
> us so much pain and grief.  In this case, it is an existing symbol
> which is already non-static, and for which we have code in a
> development tree that will be using it.  In the r/o bind case, it is
> the insistence that you can't push an existing patch to expose a new
> interface that must be used later in the r/o bind patchset and which
> sweeps across all trees changing stuff that causes pain and grief.
> In both cases, if we expand "in-tree" development users to include
> known development trees that are intended for mainline, it makes all
> of our lives MUCH easier.  

The following was meant 100% seriously:

This patch has been sent on:
- 16 May 2006
- 1 May 2006
- 23 Apr 2006

If me resending this old patch collides with something finally getting a 
user this part of my patch shouldn't be applied now (but you might get 
it again in 6 months if it's still unused...).

But generally such conflicts would become visible if "known development 
trees that are intended for mainline" were in -mm.

> 					- Ted



       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-02-18 13:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-17  8:19 Adrian Bunk
2008-02-18  7:04 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-02-18  7:12   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-18 11:49     ` Theodore Tso
2008-02-18 12:57       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-18 13:31         ` Theodore Tso
2008-02-18 13:55           ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-18 13:12       ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2008-02-18 13:28         ` Theodore Tso
2008-02-27 19:39           ` Adrian Bunk
2008-02-18 13:31         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-18 15:11           ` Theodore Tso
2008-02-18 16:22             ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-27 21:20   ` [2.6 patch] unexport journal_update_superblock Adrian Bunk

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [2.6 patch] fs/jbd/journal.c: cleanups' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).