[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinsQjWD1t1lO_BHnM-afzYyl7TKKdIcNZEVMg6n@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:00:10 -0700
From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OCFS2: Allow huge (> 16 TiB) volumes to mount
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:
> On 2010-07-12, at 19:08, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>>
>> Are you suggesting I need to do this before my patch is accepted at
>> all? Or is this a refactoring that can happen later?
>
> I'm just suggesting it should be done at some point. I thought it would be better to do it first, rather than add yet another copy of this code. That said, I hate to block useful fixes because of cleanup (and I have no control over OCFS2 anyway :-). However, I've found that once the fix is in people usually forget (or become too busy) to do the cleanup and it just lingers on unseen.
I hear you.
I do not object to factoring out the basic addressability test and
using it in my patch, leaving it for others -- like yourself :-) -- to
modify other file systems to invoke it.
Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? If so, where should the
function live and what should it be called, do you think?
- Pat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists