Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] exfat: remove useless check in exfat_move_file()
To:     Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
Cc:     kohada.tetsuhiro@dc.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        mori.takahiro@ab.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        motai.hirotaka@aj.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        'Sungjong Seo' <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>
References: <CGME20200911044511epcas1p4d62863352e65c534cd6080dd38d54b26@epcas1p4.samsung.com>
 <20200911044506.13912-1-kohada.t2@gmail.com>
 <015f01d68bd1$95ace4d0$c106ae70$@samsung.com>
 <8a430d18-39ac-135f-d522-90d44276faf8@gmail.com>
 <8c9701d6956a$13898560$3a9c9020$@samsung.com>
 <000001d6956b$e7bab2e0$b73018a0$@samsung.com>
From:   Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a0364e6-2192-439d-f874-11402dc8009c@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:41:58 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <000001d6956b$e7bab2e0$b73018a0$@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


>>> BTW
>>> Are you busy now?
>> I'm sorry, I'm so busy for my full time work :( Anyway, I'm trying to review serious bug patches or
>> bug reports first.
>> Other patches, such as clean-up or code refactoring, may take some time to review.
>>
>>> I am waiting for your reply about "integrates dir-entry getting and
>>> validation" patch.
>> As I know, your patch is being under review by Namjae.
> I already gave comments and a patch, but you said you can't do it.
> I'm sorry, But I can't accept an incomplete patch. I will directly fix it later.

Of course, I understand that you can't accept a under-discussed patch.

I think you know what I'm trying to do, with previous patches.
Unfortunately, I couldn't implement it properly using the patch you provided.
But I don't think the checksum and name-lenth issues should be left unresolved.
(How do you think?)
So I want you to think with me.

I still feel we haven't discussed this enough.
I still don't understand what you think is the problem with the patch.
Where and what kind of problems do you think the patch has?
- performance?
- wrong behavior?
- readability?
- runtime cost?
- style?
- other?

I think I explained the reason for each implementation.
If it's not enough, I'd like to explain it in more detail.


BR
---
Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@gmail.com>