[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE 981498 - Use xfs_idestroy() to cleanup an inode.

To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TAKE 981498 - Use xfs_idestroy() to cleanup an inode.
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:15:03 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, markgw@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48ABB602.5030404@xxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, markgw@xxxxxxx
References: <20080820033302.AF92058C52A8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080820035642.GB6061@disturbed> <48ABB602.5030404@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:13:22PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> This change was part of another patch that you reviewed.  This small
> change got left out when I merged my changes in with your inode
> allocation cleanup which you asked me to do. 

Yes, I did ask for you to do that and I kinda expected to see the
result for review again after that. I did not review the changes
that were committed.

A second review would have caught the bug you introduced by
integrating the bug fix into my patch as I would have suggested that
you keep the enhancment and the bug fix as two separare commits.
Then the commit logs that would have a 'use init_once' commit and a
'deadlock + memory leak fix' commit....

> I also had to modify
> your original patch because it did not apply cleanly due other changes
> that you made (the semaphore completion stuff).

You could have asked for an updated patch when you found it
didn't apply. I had one ready to go and ended up posting
it twice before your commit...

> I didn't have to take
> your cleanup patch - I could have just fixed the bug.

Your choice, but either way I kind of expect some kind of dialogue
when changes are neceessary.  It only takes a few seconds to send a
'doesn't apply - can you update/going with original bugfix'


Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>