[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210617163202.GR158209@locust>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:32:02 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Pavel Reichl <preichl@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] xfs: Refactor xfs_isilocked()
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 09:29:20AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 05:57:12PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 16-06-21 08:47:05, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:53:04AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Wed 16-06-21 06:37:12, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:17:57AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > From: Pavel Reichl <preichl@...hat.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Refactor xfs_isilocked() to use newly introduced __xfs_rwsem_islocked().
> > > > > > __xfs_rwsem_islocked() is a helper function which encapsulates checking
> > > > > > state of rw_semaphores hold by inode.
> > > > >
> > > > > __xfs_rwsem_islocked doesn't seem to actually existing in any tree I
> > > > > checked yet?
> > > >
> > > > __xfs_rwsem_islocked is introduced by this patch so I'm not sure what are
> > > > you asking about... :)
> > >
> > > The sentence structure implies that __xfs_rwsem_islocked was previously
> > > introduced. You might change the commit message to read:
> > >
> > > "Introduce a new __xfs_rwsem_islocked predicate to encapsulate checking
> > > the state of a rw_semaphore, then refactor xfs_isilocked to use it."
> > >
> > > Since it's not quite a straight copy-paste of the old code.
> >
> > Ah, ok. Sure, I can rephrase the changelog (or we can just update it on
> > commit if that's the only problem with this series...). Oh, now I've
> > remembered I've promised you a branch to pull :) Here it is with this
> > change and Christoph's Reviewed-by tags:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-fs.git hole_punch_fixes
>
> To catch-up the list with the ext4 concall:
>
> Dave Chinner and I have been experimenting with accepting tagged pull
> requests, where the tag message is the most recent cover letter so that
> the git history can capture the broader justification for the series and
> the development revision history. Signed tags would be ideal too,
> though given the impossibility of meeting in person to exchange gnupg
> keys (and the fact that one has to verify that the patches in the branch
> more or less match what's on the list) I don't consider that an
> impediment.
>
> Also, if you want me to take this through the xfs tree then it would
> make things much easier if you could base this branch off 5.13-rc4, or
> something that won't cause a merge request to pull in a bunch of
> unrelated upstream changes.
Oh, and also: Please send pull requests as a new thread tagged '[GIT
PULL]' so the requests don't get buried in a patch reply thread.
--D
> --D
>
> >
> > Honza
> > --
> > Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> > SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists