From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] freeze feature ver 1.13 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:26:58 -0500 Message-ID: <1222464418.27833.7.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> References: <20080926175652t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> <30536.1222426096@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Takashi Sato , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , "mtk.manpages@googlemail.com" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <30536.1222426096@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 06:48 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:56:52 +0900, Takashi Sato said: > 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. > 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