Re: [PATCH v2] hfs,hfsplus: cache pages correctly between bnode_create and bnode_free

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1 July 2015 at 17:09, Sergei Antonov <saproj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 30 June 2015 at 17:40, Hin-Tak Leung <hintak.leung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 28 June 2015 at 19:52, Sergei Antonov <saproj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>> If I fix something else in hfsplus in the future, will you again
>>> submit a combined hfsplus+hfs patch? I would prefer separation. Hoped
>>> to receive your "Tested-by:" for my "hfsplus: release bnode pages
>>> after use, not before" and then submit a V2 of it with a longer
>>> description.
>>
>> Possibly yes, if the patch description is clearly unsatisfactory and
>> deemed incomprehensible, and you have not re-submitted a v2
>> within a reasonable time. I already explained why I re-submitted
>> with a different patch description in the first of 3 below:
>>
>> [PATCH 0/2] two patches about B-tree corruptions in hfs and hfsplus
>> [PATCH v2] hfs,hfsplus: cache pages correctly between bnode_create and
>> [PATCH] hfs: fix B-tree corruption after insertion at position 0
>>
>> Please just re-submit v2 yourself if more than a few people thinks your patch
>> description is unsatisfactory, instead of waiting for somebody else to
>> do it for you;
>> and also please just say "thank you", when others are willing spend their
>> valuable time to look at and check and verify what you do.
>
> This "what I do" fixes the problem you have been complaining about for
> years. The historical research you have done is interesting, but
> simple testing is to be expected in the first place.

You are still trying to argue that your patch description is not poor,
as you did a few times in this thread already. Quite a few of us had
already said
it is poor. I did not think you were going to submit a v2, because you
have not really accepted any criticisms as valid, either.

You don't think the lost development history between 2001
and 2005 is important. I think it is. That is clearly reflected in how poor
your patch description is, and why I re-wrote the patch description.
Not new idea here.

I am still waiting for that 'thank you' for time spent on testing and collating
all the discussion into the new patch description.

Hin-Tak
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux