[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 23/41] dm: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support for bio-based dm



Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10 2010 at  7:36pm -0400,
Tejun Heo <tj kernel org> wrote:

  
On 09/10/2010 10:06 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
    
But I have my work rules that I learned: I use no git kernels and no 
external patches (except Alasdair's patchset that I want to test). I only 
use -rc or final kernels. I need a stable computer --- I don't want to 
solve problems like "does it crash because I pulled something or does it 
crash because I made a bug in my code?" So, put that into 2.6.37-rc1 and 
I'll optimize flushes in dm for -rc2 or -rc3.
      
Alright, I'm sorry but this is as far as I would go for dm conversion
patches.  If you wanna split it further or do it your way, please feel
free to.  I think it would be beneficial to do things now but, hey,
you guys are maintaining dm part of the kernel, so it's up to you
guys.  But, I think it would be silly for everyone else to wait for
the rather special requirement for dm, so if we have to go forward
without dm updates, I suppose we will have to.  Jens, please feel free
to drop dm conversion patches.
    
Tejun,

Mikulas doesn't speak for Alasdair or the rest of the DM developers.  He
speaks for himself.  He, like me, is a member of the team that helps
maintain DM.  But Alasdair is the upstream DM maintainer.

Please don't latch on to Mikulas' disruptive stone-walling.  As I shared
in my previous reply: your FLUSH+FUA contributions to DM are very much
appreciated!  Kiyoshi, Jun'ichi and myself have all worked with you
effectively and so far the end result DM conversion has proven quite
stable and correct.  Wider testing via linux-next is an important next
step.

Jens, please don't drop the DM FLUSH+FUA conversion patches from your
'for-next' branch.  Mikulas has yet to offer a single substantive
criticism of the code in question.
  

He is commenting on the process rather than the code, since he tells you that he lacks time to review your complex changes to his work, so your saying that he hasn't found errors in it is muddy thinking as best.

He provided a patch and would like it tested properly before you drop a bunch of stuff on top of it, to be sure it gets proper exposure and wider testing. That sounds like sound software development to me. It sounds as though you feel that the inclusion of your additional work is critical and can't possibly wait until the next -rc or release, and I have missed the reason why your stuff can't wait until it can drop on mainline code..

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen tmr com>
  "We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
   used in creating them." - Einstein

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]