On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:07:09AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > TBH, I think this patch should probably be broken down into two or three > independent patches anyways. To what end? The patch is already small, it's simple to understand and it's been tested. What does breaking it up into a bunch more smaller patches actually gain us? It means hours more work on my side without any change in the end result. It's -completely wasted effort- if all I'm doing this for is to get you to issue a RVB on it. Fine grained patches do not come for free, and in a patch series that is already 30 patches long making it even longer just increases the time and resources it costs *me* to maintian it until it is merged. > What's the issue with something like the > appended diff (on top of this patch) in the meantime? If the multiple > list logic is truly necessary, reintroduce it when it's used so it's > actually reviewable.. Nothing. Except it causes conflicts further through my patch set which do the work of removing this AIL specific code. IOWs, it just *increases the amount of work I have to do* without actually providing any benefit to anyone... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
