On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Future work will be to split the xfs_mkfs.c file into a file per > module (i.e. seperate files for CLI parsing, mkfs formating, > validation+calculation and, finally, one for config file support), > but otherwise the majority of the factoring work is now complete. > > Comments, flames, etc all welcome. > In my review, I didn't saw any issues. It works, it certainly looks way better than what I was trying to do, and I didn't notice any regression, although my testing was not as thorough as Chandan's. It seems that everybody likes these changes, so is there anything that prevents it to be merged once xfstests are updated as well? And thinking about the future, I wonder if there is any point in making the suboption tables into one hierarchical like I wanted before. The main reason for my attempt was to allow cross-option conflicts and the mentioned changes also added conditional conflicts. But now with validate_sb_features() containing almost all these conflicts, I'm not sure if it would help or if it would rather make it more complex and obscure. Cheers, Jan -- 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
