From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932613AbaKUQPQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:15:16 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57192 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932155AbaKUQPM (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:15:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:15:09 +0100 From: David Sterba To: Daniel Dressler Cc: danieru.dressler@gmail.c, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , "open list:BTRFS FILE SYSTEM" , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: disk-io: replace root args iff only fs_info used Message-ID: <20141121161509.GD8568@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Daniel Dressler , danieru.dressler@gmail.c, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , "open list:BTRFS FILE SYSTEM" , open list References: <1416557707-9243-1-git-send-email-danieru.dressler@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1416557707-9243-1-git-send-email-danieru.dressler@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:15:07PM +0900, Daniel Dressler wrote: > This is the 3rd independent patch of a larger > project to cleanup btrfs's internal usage of > btrfs_root. Many functions take btrfs_root > only to grab the fs_info struct. > > By requiring a root these functions cause > programmer overhead. That these functions can > accept any valid root is not obvious until > inspection. > > This patch reduces the specificity of such > functions to accept the fs_info directly. > > These patches can be applied independently > and thus are not being submitted as a patch > series. There should be about 26 patches by > the project's completion. Each patch will > cleanup between 1 and 34 functions apiece. > Each patch covers a single file's functions. It's good to have this kind of introduction but it really belongs ot the cover letter not the individual patches. > > This patch affects the following function(s): > 1) csum_tree_block > 2) csum_dirty_buffer > 3) check_tree_block_fsid > 4) btrfs_find_tree_block > 5) clean_tree_block Now that I see that, I'm not sure that my previous comment about 'one patch per function' is the right way to go. This patch looks good as it stands. The change is simple enough that I won't be opposed to grouping even more functions together as long as it stays revieweable. The patches are likely to clash with a lot of pending patches, so you may want to base it on the integration branch next time. This would make maintainers' life easier and also raises chances to merge the patches. Reviewed-by: David Sterba