On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:05:13PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:44 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The current kernel code uses radix trees more widely than the
> > previous code, so for the next sync we need radix tree support in
> > libxfs. Pull the old radix tree code out the xfs_repair git history
> > and move it into libxfs to simplify the kernel code sync.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> OK, I actually reviewed this code, even though it had
> already been present in the source tree prior to commit:
> 379397bf9... ("repair: use a btree instead of a radix tree
> for the prefetch queue").
>
> And I have some suggestions, and I have at least one
> thing that I think is a bug.
>
> I also notice that this code apparently formed the
> basis of the kernel's implementation. That's good.
> It's probably worth reviewing the kernel version's
> history to see if there are any bug fixes that ought
> to be brought back into this code (and vice-versa).
>
>
> All that being said, I think the right thing to do
> is to include this change as-is as a commit. It
> includes both "radix-tree.c" and "radix-tree.h" as
> identical copies of what was removed (though each
> now resides in a different directory from before),
> thereby preserving the provenance of the code.
>
> Then, after it's committed, I can offer my suggested
> changes, or even just implement and propose them
> myself.
>
> So unless you disagree with this approach I think
> it's fine to commit it as you originally posted it.
I think that is a fine way to proceed ;)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
