On 9/14/21 3:26 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > 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 ... Sorry I missed this mainly because it had PATCH in the title and I didn't feel the shared library subject was an urgent issue. I am not opposed to splitting things into a shared library, in fact I believe I suggested this to Neil many years ago. I don't remember why it didn't happen at the time. That said, I don't think it's something that is appropriate for 4.2, but rather something to target for 5.0. For something like this I would prefer smaller patches so it's possible to bisect our way back if something broke in the process. Jumbo patches are always wrong. Cheers, Jes
