[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180521151251.GX6649@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 17:12:51 +0200
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, colyli@...e.de, darrick.wong@...cle.com,
clm@...com, bacik@...com, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, neilb@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] convert block layer to bioset_init()/mempool_init()
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 08:19:58AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/21/18 8:03 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Sun, May 20 2018 at 6:25pm -0400,
> > Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jens - this series does the rest of the conversions that Christoph wanted, and
> >> drops bioset_create().
> >>
> >> Only lightly tested, but the changes are pretty mechanical. Based on your
> >> for-next tree.
> >
> > By switching 'mempool_t *' to 'mempool_t' and 'bio_set *' to 'bio_set'
> > you've altered the alignment of members in data structures. So I'll
> > need to audit all the data structures you've modified in DM.
> >
> > Could we get the backstory on _why_ you're making this change?
> > Would go a long way to helping me appreciate why this is a good use of
> > anyone's time.
>
> Yeah, it's in the first series, it gets rid of a pointer indirection.
This should to be also mentioned the changelog of each patch. There are
12 subsystems changed, this could be about 10 maintainers and I guess
everybody has the same question why the change is made.
The conversion is not exactly the same in all patches, the simple
pointer -> static variable can be possibly covered by the same generic
text but as Mike points out the alignment changes should be at least
mentioned for consideration otherwise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists