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.