linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] block: remove blk_init

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140924145441.GA9713@lst.de>
Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:54:41 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] block: remove blk_init_flush() and its pair

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:49:00PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Simpler to merge, but more difficult to split. It is for easier review,
> since patch 5 is a bit big and each patch still does one thing.

I defintively find the current version hard to review - it moves
code around a few times before it setlles, so it requires a lot of
memory or applying patches one after another to a tree.  And while
this might be useful in some cases this is one where merging the
patches doesn't seem to have much of a downside.  We'd still move
various fields into a structure, and add helpers to init it, just
with a tiny bit more changes on the initialization side.

That being said if you really prefer the split that's fine with me,
but it doesn't really seem helpful.
--
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/