[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57299b72-8e6b-0b92-4374-1b7a0907e810@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:01:46 +0200
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Joe Perches <coupons@...ches.com>,
Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
Tomasz Majchrzak <tomasz.majchrzak@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, kbuild-all@...org,
ltp@...ts.linux.it
Subject: Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?
On 10/17/2016 01:43 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>> See above. At the moment _any_ test result from your side would do.
>>>
>>> I imagine that another single result might not be representative.
>>
>> Publish not only results but also everything (complete!) so that anyone
>> can *easily* follow it to check and reproduce the results - especially
>> if you want people with knowledge of other architectures to comment
>> (otherwise they probably won't bother).
>
> Am I the only software developer so far who would dare to reconsider
> implementation details from three status functions?
>
No.
But we're waiting for you showing is that it is an improvement.
Which at the moment we don't see.
Hence we're waiting from a proof or validation from your side.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@...e.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists