Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752166Ab0GMFAQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:00:16 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:50541 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751243Ab0GMFAM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:00:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QfA8yFdkbK7YPW7LgCdOGsxttmRIDr5tVG/oTCKotHhEsxaU6t9Rvm00Z/2hTHJlOg CgImp8sg/+UnDzaRvmGlQ7OnKSaxAn3AdlZ0d/LljWND0NzTBbU2AFGRV+KBcIlKoHr2 F1VwhYMIiFlLD2yuybVhDtDqSCypaMbDjHWkA= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <871vbax86w.fsf@patl.com> <87zkxyvtjt.fsf@patl.com> <3BB069D5-B193-43A4-B678-B3CEA4873B58@dilger.ca> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:00:10 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OCFS2: Allow huge (> 16 TiB) volumes to mount From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" To: Andreas Dilger Cc: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1228 Lines: 23 On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2010-07-12, at 19:08, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >> >> Are you suggesting I need to do this before my patch is accepted at >> all? ?Or is this a refactoring that can happen later? > > I'm just suggesting it should be done at some point. ?I thought it would be better to do it first, rather than add yet another copy of this code. ?That said, I hate to block useful fixes because of cleanup (and I have no control over OCFS2 anyway :-). ?However, I've found that once the fix is in people usually forget (or become too busy) to do the cleanup and it just lingers on unseen. I hear you. I do not object to factoring out the basic addressability test and using it in my patch, leaving it for others -- like yourself :-) -- to modify other file systems to invoke it. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? If so, where should the function live and what should it be called, do you think? - Pat -- 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/