[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <98241.1713350175@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:36:15 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>,
Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, netfs@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-cachefs@...hat.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, v9fs@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/26] netfs: Remove the old writeback code
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> #23 and #24 should probably be merged. I don't see any reason to do the
> two-step of ifdef'ing out the code and then removing it. Just go for it
> at this point in the series.
I would prefer to keep the ~500 line patch that's rearranging the plumbing
separate from the ~1200 line patch that just deletes a load of lines to make
the cutover patch easier to review. I guess that comes down to a matter of
preference.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists