On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 06:49:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:12:29AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Nack. I don't object to un-exporting journal_update_superblock(), > > > because that is pretty internal, but the other functions are intended > > > specifically for use by code outside of JBD. For example, the journal > > > checksum patch for ext3/4 uses journal_set_features() to turn on > > > features in the JBD superblock. > > > > > > Similarly, for 64-bit support in ext4 uses journal_set_features() to > > > set a 64-bit feature flag in the journal superblock. > > > > that's an invalid excuse for the benefit of out-of-tree forks: reality > > is that you can export those functions in the "journal checksum patch" > > just fine. So you cannot 'nack' a sensible patch on that ground and no > > maintainer does it on that ground. Once you get your stuff upstream, you > > can re-add the export. > > I'm going to NACK it as well. This kind of code churn where we make > symbols static only to make them non-static again in an existing ext4 > tree is exactly the sort of needless code churn that makes patches > start to conflict and where we need different patches depending on > whether it is intended for -mm or linux-next or mainline. > > I think we really have gotten WAY to doctrinaire on the if there are > no in-tree users, it MUST be static. This is exactly the sort of > mindless rules that cause the patch conflicts that have been causing > us so much pain and grief. In this case, it is an existing symbol > which is already non-static, and for which we have code in a > development tree that will be using it. In the r/o bind case, it is > the insistence that you can't push an existing patch to expose a new > interface that must be used later in the r/o bind patchset and which > sweeps across all trees changing stuff that causes pain and grief. > > In both cases, if we expand "in-tree" development users to include > known development trees that are intended for mainline, it makes all > of our lives MUCH easier.
The following was meant 100% seriously: This patch has been sent on: - 16 May 2006 - 1 May 2006 - 23 Apr 2006 If me resending this old patch collides with something finally getting a user this part of my patch shouldn't be applied now (but you might get it again in 6 months if it's still unused...). But generally such conflicts would become visible if "known development trees that are intended for mainline" were in -mm. > - Ted cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html