On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:49:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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? > I think you overestimate the simplicity to somebody who doesn't have context on whatever upcoming changes you have. I spent more time staring at this wondering what the list filtering logic was for than I would have needed to review the entire patch were those changes not included. > 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. > Note that I said "two or three" and then sent you a diff that breaks it down into two. That addresses my concern. > > 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... > Reapply the list filtering logic (reverting the same diff I already sent) at the beginning of your upcoming series that uses it. I sent the diff as a courtesy because you seem to be rather frustrated wrt to any suggestion to change this series, but this seems like a standard case of misplaced code to me with a simple fix. The fact that this is used somehow or another in a series that is so far unposted and unreviewed is not a valid justification IMO. I really don't understand what the issue is here wrt to moving the changes to where they're used. Brian > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
