On Monday 28 April 2008 01:23, David Chinner wrote:
quoted text
> > This patch reduces xfs_page_state_convert() stack usage by 16 bytes
> > by eliminating some local variables, and reducing the size
> > of scope for other locals.
> > 
> > Compile tested only.
> 
> Can you start testing your patches? if you are touching the writeback
> or allocator path, there's a pretty high barrier to having patches
> excepted, and testing them before is one of them. Go and download the

Its you who asked for patches. It's not like I decided
to nag you because I have nothing better to do. Actually,
my plate is pretty full with other things already.

quoted text
> XFSQA suite from the xfs-cmds CVS tree on oss.sgi.com, and run your
> patches through it....


On Tuesday 22 April 2008 03:28, David Chinner wrote:
quoted text
> Patches are welcome - I'd be over the moon if any of the known 4k
> stack advocates sent a stack reduction patch for XFS, but it seems
> that actually trying to fix the problems is much harder than
> resending a one line patch every few months....

So I went ahead and actually spend a good chunk of the week
trying to help you.

I believe that my patches were sufficiently well thought-out,
carefully implemented and reasonably tested (for a guy who
never used xfs, have no xfs partitions, and not exactly
planning to use xfs in the future).

quoted text
> pretty high barrier to having patches accepted

I was honestly trying to help you. I am still willing
to do it, but at some point you have to carry some part
of a burden (maybe review and run testing?).

If you are not going to accept patches, why you are
accusing people of not sending them to you?
--
vda
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/