| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20101209234258.GB9925@dastard> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:42:58 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/46] fs: dcache scale hash 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@...morbit.com -- 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