On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:44:20PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:16:35AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:50:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Everyone who tries to modify mkfs quickly learns that it is a pile > > > of spaghetti, the only difference in opinion is whether it is a > > > steaming, cold or rotten pile. This patchset attempts to untangle > > > the ball of pasta and turn it into a set of clear, obvious > > > operations that lead to a filesystem being formatted correctly. > > > > Yay. > > > > > The patch series is really in three parts, splitting the code up > > > into roughly three modules. > > > > Any reason you ended up with 3 instead of 4 as originally envisioned? > > Because the 4th module - config file support - doesn't exist yet. To be fair you had itemized before: 1) Settings default - struct mkfs_default_params 2) CLI parsing - struct cli_params 3) Validation + calculation - struct mkfs_params 4) On disk formatting > > > The result is three modules - input parsing, validation+calculations > > > and formatting - with well defined data flow between them. And you instead ended up with: 1) Input parsing - struct mkfs_default_params and I guess struct cli_params 2) Validation + calculation - struct mkfs_params 3) On disk formatting Hence my question. > Maybe you can come up with a way of automating this, but for a > one-off piece of work that affects a point-in-time snapshot of mkfs > functionality, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to try to make a > generic test to do this sort of thing. In Dave we trust! > > > finally, one for config file support), > > > but otherwise the majority of the factoring work is now complete. > > > > > > Comments, flames, etc all welcome. > > > > Just one thing, got a git tree I can use? I honestly can't be bothered > > reviewing the delta in between, I just want to move on with life. Thanks > > for cleaning up the manure pile buttress. > > Nope, not right now. Tag all the patches, save them to an mbox > file, run 'git-am <mbox-file>' to apply them all. Takes all of 20s > to do with mutt.... Turns out mutt re-orders tagged messages in what I think may be the order you got them in so the order on the input output filename may differ from the patch order intent. Even when I manually sort them and apply them, the patches failed on both origin/master and origin/for-next, so I must be doing something wrong or using an incorrect branch or commit ID. What branch and commit ID should I use? It also seems I didn't get patch #20 in my inbox, could you resend? On the latest origin/for-next applying your patches fails at patch #3, you need git am -3, but then after that it fails at patch #9 even with git am -3. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
