On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:41:17PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 04:20:00PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > Hi Sven, > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:16:18PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote: > > > > Fix performance regressions compared to current kernel LZ4 > > > > > > Your patch contains mostly style cleanups which certainly are welcome > > > but make the whole patch hard to review. These cleanups would have been > > > better into a separate, preliminary patch IMHO. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Willy > > > > Hi Willy, > > > > the problem was, I wanted to compare my version to the upstream LZ4 to find > > bugs (as with my last patch version: wrong indentation in LZ4HC > > in two for loops). But since the LZ4 code is a pain to read, I made > > additional style cleanups "on the way". > > Oh I can easily understand! > > > Hope you can manage to review the patch though, because it is difficult to > > separate the cleanups now. > > When I need to split a patch into pieces, usually what I do is that I > revert it, re-apply it without committing, then "git add -p", validate > all the hunks to be taken as the first patch (ie here the cleanups), > commit, then commit the rest as a separate one. It seems to me that the > fix is in the last few hunks though I'm not sure yet. > > Thanks, > Willy
Hi Willy, I didn't know about this 'trick' until now. Thanks for sharing it! I gave it a short try recently, that's really cool! Since the problem discussed in this branch of this thread seems to be solved (see Minchans E-Mail), I won't split the patches, though. Or is there an actual need for doing so? I will send an updated patchset (containing these patches + the other ones suggested by Eric) later. Regards, Sven
