On 9/14/21 9:08 AM, Xiao Ni wrote: > Hi Hannes > > Thanks for these patches. It's a good idea to make codes more clearly > that which codes belong to which file. > There are many efforts that move codes from mdadm.c and mdadm.h to > specific files. Is it better to put these > patches together? For example, the patches(6, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 27, > 28) try to clean mdadm.c. Could you put > similar patches together? And there are some rename patches too, they > are sporadic. > Sure. Wasn't sure how you'd like to handle it; some prefer smaller patches, some prefer less patches overall ... > For patch03, the argument is name, but it uses optarg in the function > mdadm_get_layout. Is it an error? > Have to check. > By the way, are there some other users who use the library besides mdadm/mdmon? > Not yet, but there is a program I wrote some time ago https://github.com/hreinecke/md_monitor.git which currently does an 'exec' on mdadm, and error handling _that_ is a major pain. Having a shared library will make life easier there. And I've some projects planned which would need to leverage mdadm functionality, so for those a mdadm library would be ideal. > And it's good for me if you send patches directly by email to > linux-raid mail list. > Sure. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer
