On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Amir G. <amir73il@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:58:09PM +0200, amir73il@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> In preparation for the next patch, the function ext4_add_groupblocks() >>> is moved to mballoc.c, where it could use some static functions. >>> >>> I also fixed a checkpatch warning and replaced obsolete get_undo_access >>> for bitmap with get_write_access. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Please don't move code and make changes in one patch. #1, it's hard >> to review changes that happened in the middle of code movement. #2, >> if there has been any changes in the source function caused by other >> patches, I can't regenerate a patch by simply redoing the function >> move --- I have to reverse engineer the change that happened under the >> cover of code movement, regnerate the patch, and then redo the change. >> > > Sorry for the trouble. At least I (sort of) documented the change in the commit > description, so I hope it wasn't too hard to reverse engineer... > Fixing the checkpatch error I just kind of felt obligated to do, changing > get_undo_access to get_write_access in this patch was just me being lazy. > > >> I've split this into two patches, one which is just a simple code >> movement (note that I also moved the function declaration in ext4.h so >> it function is listed under the correct .c file), and the second which >> changed the use of ext4_journal_get_undo_access to >> ext4_journal_get_write_access. Since this was also the last use of >> ext4_journal_get_undo_access(), I also removed the now-unneeded code >> in ext4_jbd2.[ch]. >> > > Thanks. FYI, in one of the snapshot patches this get_write_access instance is > replaced with get_bitmap_access (which calls a different snapshot hook). > That patch also removes the get_undo_access function, but now you beat > me to it :-) > > FYI2, the snapshot patches are waiting in my outbox for me to push send. > When running xfstests I caught a hang in test 225 with 1K blocksize > (all other tests were fine), > so I asked Yongqiang to take a look at it because his patch (6d9c85) had fixed > a problem in test 225. He just said that the hang was caused by a bug > in his patch > and that the hang happen with tytso/master branch and that he is > working on a fix, > so I may just go a head and send out the snapshot patches anyway. Fixed. You can send snapshot patches out. > > > >> - Ted >> > -- Best Wishes Yongqiang Yang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
