Re: [PATCH 11/46] fs: dcache scale hash

[Dave Chinner]

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:53:27PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >> Like I said, there are infinite cleanups or improvements you can make.
> >> It does not particularly matter that they happen before or after the
> >> scaling work, except if there are classes of APIs that the new locking
> >> model can no longer support.
> >
> > We do plenty of cleanups when changing code when the result gives us
> > simpler and easier to understand code. It's a trivial change that,
> > IMO, makes the code more consistent and easier to follow.
> 
> Unrelated "cleanups" in the same patch as non trivial locking change
> is stupid.

So put it in another prepartory patch. It makes the locking changes
easier to understand...

> Necessary changes to prevent bad ugliness resulting, or preventing
> repeated steps for the particular changes, etc. of course. Killing un
> related functions no.

Ok, I get the picture. You don't want a code review, you want a
rubber stamp. Find someone else to get it from.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/