On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:23:12AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 12:02 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:21:40AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:55 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > This patchset has grown quite a bit - it started out as a "convert > > > > the buffer cache to rbtrees" patch, and has gotten bigger as I > > > > peeled the onion from one bottleneck to another. > . . . > > > > > All together, with the LRU code being reworked a bit w.r.t. stale > > buffers and shrinker behaviour. > > > > In reality, though, i don't think that separating them into separate > > series make much sense. The order they are in right now is > > bisectable and fairly logical.... > > I have been thinking about this since sending it. I think my > concern was not so much that they were all in one series. It's > more about the fact that you are doing a number of non-trivial > changes, all together. And as such my perception of the combined > risk of committing them all at once is higher. So what I was > probably after was somehow being able to verify each chunk of > the series separately, spilling them out gradually rather > than all at once. > > But in the end, I guess I agree with what you say. If we could > get some parts--like those you say are standalone--committed > earlier (and then out for wider exposure sooner) that would be > good, but otherwise it's OK as a single series. I'll look for > your next update, and will just wait for pull request(s) when > you feel they're ready. Ok, that sounds reaonable. I can split out all the stand alone/cleanup stuff, and leave the functional changes to later. I'll do a reorder later today. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
