[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: Don't flush stale inodes

To: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: Don't flush stale inodes
From: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:43:56 -0600
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20100109223920.GA4019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AcqRfJrwhjCy6jt6R/iBSrFCNxFdugAl2TAA
Thread-topic: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: Don't flush stale inodes
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 10:22:14AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
>> Yes, I see that now.  I had marked your older one "Reviewed" and
>> didn't look further.  I will re-do the port and will re-submit.
>> BTW I also plan to port the perag radix tree patch(es) over this
>> for you after I get this one published.
> Don't make extra work for yourself that slows down the rate at which
> you can merge stuff. When the tree is updated with these patches,
> I'll fix any conflicts in my patches and retest them, then send them
> to the list again.

You are right.  And I do very much want to keep improving
the turnaround for merges.

> As a maintainer, manually munging a bunch patches around to fit,
> then asking if they are correct, then finally merging them doesn't
> scale - push that work back out to the patch authors where it does
> scale and who have probably already done the work.... ;)

Right again, and I will gladly do this from here forward.
Remind me if I stray off course again...

Thanks a lot Dave.


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