[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120529022025.GH20954@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:20:25 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, bharrosh@...asas.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
mpatocka@...hat.com, sage@...dream.net, yehuda@...newdream.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/16] block: Kill bi_destructor
Hello, Kent.
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:10:42PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Heh. Well, in my view deleting stuff is good by default, and if you can
> delete things without user visible effects and without making the code
> more complicated...
>
> So I guess given the simplicity of this particular patch in the series
> I'm not sure what there is to justify here. Any suggestions on what
> would make sense to put in...?
So, what I would prefer to see is the justification of the whole
changes somewhere in the patch stream, so that patches can do,n
patch 1: update X to not use bi_destructor which will soon be removed.
patch 2: ditto for Y
...
patch N: bi_destructor is stupid because blah blah and after preceding
changes is no longer used. Kill it.
so that when one sees a patch in the series and wonders why the change
is being made, [s]he can follow the patch stream and understand.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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