Hi Xiang, On 2018/7/2 10:48, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On 2018/7/2 9:47, Chao Yu wrote: >>> I left some words on the last patch of this patchset, >>> [WIP] [NOMERGE] [RFC PATCH v0.3 6/6] erofs: introduce VLE decompression >>> subsystem: >>> >>> "The patchset is temporarily based on >>> [RFC PATCH RESEND 11/12] erofs: introduce a customized LZ4 decompression >>> The new unzip system is still _buggy_, not for _daily_ use!" >>> >>> which seems improper, sorry... I will take care and leave message at the >>> beginning from now on. >> No problem, I think we can add revert patch for [PATCH 12/12] erofs: >> introduce a >> customized LZ4 decompression, so that we can track erofs code change history >> more clearly, and once you want to look into it or make code going back to >> the >> old implementation, we can remove that revert patch later. >> >> The history will be only existed in current erofs dev branch, once the code >> is >> pushed or merged by Linux or Android OS, it will invisible. >> >> Or you're sure about remove old implementation, let's do it... >> >> Thanks> > > I am also thinking about this yesterday, how about rebasing the following > patches: > > erofs: support tracepoint > erofs: introduce error injection infrastructure > erofs: introduce parse_options() > erofs: support special inode > erofs: remove unused EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_ADVISE > erofs: fix to return correct value of alloc_inode > erofs: fix to do endian conversion correctly > erofs: fix missing endian conversion > erofs: fix to avoid potential overflow > erofs: fix compile error > erofs: add the missing header <linux/prefetch.h> > erofs: update SPDX-License-Identifier <- Could we drop this patch > temporarily? > Some files could be re-licensed in > the future for mkfs, > especially the file "erofs_fs.h"
Okay, > erofs: fix ifnullfree.cocci warnings > > on "[RFC PATCH RESEND 11/12] erofs: introduce a customized LZ4 decompression > temporarily" > then apply [PATCH 12/12] and make the following patch on the top of [PATCH > 12/12] > erofs: fix to handle return value of erofs_init_page_bundle() correctly <- > > "git am -k -3" could be a powerful way to get this done.. No problem. > > In addition to that, we could have 2 choises to apply the new unzip subsystem: > 1) We could revert [PATCH 12/12] and "erofs: fix to handle return value of > erofs_init_page_bundle() correctly" > and then apply the new patchset just as you said, > or > 2) Introduce a new 'dev-test' branch as Jaegeuk Kim's branch. We can do both of them, let's treat erofs branch as master branch, and we can split erofs-dev branch (dev-test will not be so obvious to indicate that branch is belong to erofs, so let's use erofs-dev) from erofs branch for further development. So in erofs-dev, we can do anything temporarily change and testing, and once it becomes stable, we can merge there-in patches back to erofs branch. And for any old codes or implementation obsolescing in erofs branch, let's use git-revert or remove codes in a separated patch instead of dropping a patch directly. :) How do you think? Thanks, > > Boths for me are ok. :) > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > > . >
