Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181201142414.7766-1-tiny.windzz@gmail.com> <5682c419-9e44-10ed-6a2e-286e6f5c5def@kernel.dk>
 <CAEExFWtJEJwgGR3gqfHDXw-c4nyA7dkQTd9fkzVsht=ROmfgMQ@mail.gmail.com> <92334639-9d34-5e6a-2c43-945a20077394@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <92334639-9d34-5e6a-2c43-945a20077394@kernel.dk>
From:   Frank Lee <tiny.windzz@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 2 Dec 2018 02:58:57 +0800
Message-ID: <CAEExFWtx=+Ee2FgxvOJPFOK=cisjMZiUM18OqQ8hb1FET6N=7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: Change to use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro
To:     axboe@kernel.dk
Cc:     ed.cashin@acm.org, philipp.reisner@linbit.com,
        Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, josh.h.morris@us.ibm.com,
        pjk1939@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, nbd@other.debian.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 2:38 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 12/1/18 11:31 AM, Frank Lee wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 2:11 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/1/18 7:24 AM, Yangtao Li wrote:
> >>> Use DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE macro to simplify the code.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> changes in v2:
> >>> -Modify some function names to avoid compilation errors
> >>
> >> The fact that your previous patch didn't even compile doesn't fill me
> >> with a lot of confidence in the amount of diligence and testing
> >> you apply to your patches.
> >>
> >> Why would you send something out that you didn't even compile?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jens Axboe
> >>
> > These changes are the same and only require a small change.
> > Most of the changes are fine, so it's a bit negligent.
>
> When someone is sending a patch for inclusion, at the very minimum
> I expect it to have been compiled, and preferably tested too. Doesn't
> matter how small the change is, even a one-liner should go through that.
>
> That said, I'm not a huge fan of changes like this. It completely
> hides what is going on for someone reading the code, and it's not
> like there's a win on code size for example. The only win seems to
> be that driver writes can't mess it up, which is a nice benefit.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
Yeah,you are right.Can you review it?

Yours,
Yangtao