On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 07:42:53PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> > This set of patches constitutes Unionfs version 2.0. We are presenting it to > >> > be reviewed and considered for inclusion into the kernel. > >> > >> Small nit: is it possible to order these patches so that the kernel > >> builds at each intermediate point (so we can use git bisect). The > >> easiest way to achieve this would be to do the Kconfig and Makefile > >> updates last. > > > >Ideally, when Unionfs is commited into git, the whole thing would be one > >commit - what's the point of having half of a filesystem? > > So that you can eliminate e.g. locking bugs by searching in less code. I think you misunderstood my comment. What I meant to say was that there is _no way_ you can compile a filesystem that has only dentry ops but not superblock ops - this would happen if you tried to bisect and you landed half way in the series of commits for the filesystem. For the _initial_ commit one cset makes sense. For subsequent fixes one commit per fix is the only logical thing to do. Josef "Jeff" Sipek. -- Bad pun of the week: The formula 1 control computer suffered from a race condition -- VGER BF report: H 7.95683e-07 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
