On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 06:48 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:56:52 +0900, Takashi Sato said: > Would it be a good idea to merge patch 10 into patch 8? Otherwise, there's > two issues I can see: > > 1) A mostly theoretical problem if a bisect lands exactly on patch 9 it can > hit the deadlock. Really, there's no deadlock until someone uses the new function, so that's not really an issue, is it? However, this patchset breaks bisection anyway. A bisect anywhere between patch 1 and 7 will cause some number of filesystems to fail to compile. Patches 1-7 either need to be combined into one, or patch 1 needs to add freeze_fs and unfreeze_fs while leaving write_super_lockfs and unlockfs, then a patch between 7 and 8 could remove write_super_lockfs and unlockfs. > 2) The API at patch 8 and patch 10 differs, that's going to make testing through > a bisection of this patch series a pain. There's no need to test the new interface during a bisection. Bisection is important in testing regressions, but not new function. -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center -- 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
