On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 06:48 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:56:52 +0900, Takashi Sato said:

quoted text
> Would it be a good idea to merge patch 10 into patch 8?   Otherwise, there's
> two issues I can see:
> 
> 1) A mostly theoretical problem if a bisect lands exactly on patch 9 it can
> hit the deadlock.

Really, there's no deadlock until someone uses the new function, so
that's not really an issue, is it?  However, this patchset breaks
bisection anyway.

A bisect anywhere between patch 1 and 7 will cause some number of
filesystems to fail to compile.  Patches 1-7 either need to be combined
into one, or patch 1 needs to add freeze_fs and unfreeze_fs while
leaving write_super_lockfs and unlockfs, then a patch between 7 and 8
could remove write_super_lockfs and unlockfs.

quoted text
> 2) The API at patch 8 and patch 10 differs, that's going to make testing through
> a bisection of this patch series a pain.

There's no need to test the new interface during a bisection.  Bisection
is important in testing regressions, but not new function.
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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/