Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > this slow_work_wait_for_items() function should move into the #ifdef > block too. I disagree: I want to keep the variable declaration blocks small; I'd rather not even put the inline functions in there that I did. I only did that because you wanted the #ifdef count reduced. > In terms of .32 i guess it's OK too and the fix is needed - but i'd really > not have done even the preceding changes - why again did we need > /proc/slow_work_rq via 8fba10a The slow_work_rq debugging interface is not strictly necessary, but it proved a useful debugging tool. I emailed Linus before I went on holiday and asked if he was willing to take these not-strictly-necessary patches on which other patches were built, or whether he'd prefer me to drop those patches and adjust the rest. > and why did it have to happen right before the final kernel? Because it did. That's when I finished my set of patches and published them before going on holiday for a week - and that in turn was related to when I came up with a better test case. Sometimes coincidences do happen. > If then it should have been done in debugfs - we dont need yet another > /proc ABI. Possibly. That just means we have a debugfs ABI instead of a proc ABI - it needs maintaining either way. On the other hand, it can be moved there easily and the docs changed, and doing so makes a reasonable amount of sense - except that debugfs isn't normally mounted by at least Fedora for some reason. David -- 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
