Re: [PATCH 0/4] The remaining extent_io.c split code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 03:47:47PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 04:32:48PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Hopefully all of it makes it this time, if you want you can pull from
> > 
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git \
> > 	extent-io-rearranging
> 
> The size of the exported patch 1/4 is 109066 bytes and the diff itself
> is incomprehensible to even see what code moves where and what is new.
> 
> I'm still thinking if this is a good idea to apply a monster patch, even
> it's just moving code around. The previous series splitting
> extent-tree.c were better so I'd rather take that approach again. Some
> of the functions belong logically together and won't break compilation
> and would actually make it possible for a human to review.

extent-tree.c was way different because a bunch of things had to be renamed and
exported.  Also extent-tree.c got split into many more files, so there was less
bulk being moved around.  extent_io.c is different because basically everything
is exported already, so it's really just move definitions, move code.  I
literally just split vim'ed, cut and paste between the two files.

Things like this are going to be impossible to review.  It's a one time pain for
more readability and better decisions down the road.  I did my best to keep the
logical changes to their own patch, but the fact is we have _a lot_ of code for
each of these different logical things.  I can turn it into 45 patches moving
one function at a time, but who's going to go and check each individual patch?

Josef



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux