[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060903194456.GA4977@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 15:44:56 -0400
From: Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, akpm@...l.org, viro@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22][RFC] Unionfs: Stackable Namespace Unification Filesystem
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 07:42:53PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> > This set of patches constitutes Unionfs version 2.0. We are presenting it to
> >> > be reviewed and considered for inclusion into the kernel.
> >>
> >> Small nit: is it possible to order these patches so that the kernel
> >> builds at each intermediate point (so we can use git bisect). The
> >> easiest way to achieve this would be to do the Kconfig and Makefile
> >> updates last.
> >
> >Ideally, when Unionfs is commited into git, the whole thing would be one
> >commit - what's the point of having half of a filesystem?
>
> So that you can eliminate e.g. locking bugs by searching in less code.
I think you misunderstood my comment. What I meant to say was that there is
_no way_ you can compile a filesystem that has only dentry ops but not
superblock ops - this would happen if you tried to bisect and you landed
half way in the series of commits for the filesystem. For the _initial_
commit one cset makes sense. For subsequent fixes one commit per fix is the
only logical thing to do.
Josef "Jeff" Sipek.
--
Bad pun of the week: The formula 1 control computer suffered from a race
condition
--
VGER BF report: H 7.95683e-07
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists