Re: [PATCH 3/4] UBI: Fastmap: Care about the protection queue

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 15:21 +0300, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
> Hi Artem/Richard
> 
> I think your discussion here stopped being relevant to this specific 
> patch but went on to the fastmap feature design in general :)
> This patch fixes a real bug in the current implementation of the 
> feature. What you're discussing requires a re-writing and re-design of 
> the feature. Perhaps this one can be merged and will be "fixed" later on 
> when you agree on how you would like FM to access WL data structures in 
> general?

First of all, "re-writing and re-design of the feature" is an
overstatement. So far this is on the "cleaning things up" side of the
spectrum, closer to the "re-factoring" area.

WRT "merge the fix now and improve later" - this is a good argument for
an "inside a company" discussion, where the primary TTM is the driving
factor.

For the community TTM is a good thing, but quality comes first.

Now, if this was about a regression, one could apply time pressure on
the maintainer. But we are talking about a problem which was there from
day 0.

It is completely normal for the maintainer to push back various
hot-fixes for the problem and request some reasonable re-factoring
first. This is what I do. This is very very usual thing in the Linux
community.

So far I did not ask anything huge and unreasonable, I think. Just
cleaner inter-subsystem APIs, less of the "fastmap uses the other
subsystems' internals" kind of things.

--
Artem.