On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:31:17PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 23.04.2018 12:27, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > On 2018年04月23日 15:54, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > >> While trying to make sense of the lifecycle of delayed iputs it became > >> apparent > >> that the delay_iput parameter of btrfs_start_delalloc_roots/ > >> btrfs_start_delalloc_inodes is always set to 0. (Patch 1 contains > >> historical > >> information of why this parameter was needed and when it became obsolete). > >> Now > >> that the code has changed sufficiently it's no longer required to have it > >> so > >> this series gradually removes it. > >> > >> Nikolay Borisov (5): > >> btrfs: Remove delayed_iput parameter of btrfs_start_delalloc_roots > >> btrfs: Remove delayed_iput parameter from btrfs_start_delalloc_inodes > >> btrfs: Remove delay_iput parameter from __start_delalloc_inodes > >> btrfs: Remove delayed_iput member from btrfs_delalloc_work > >> btrfs: Unexport btrfs_alloc_delalloc_work > > > > Solid cleanup. > > > > Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com> > > > > Just a little nitpick about the 3rd and 4th patch. > > It would be nicer the merge them, as in the the 3rd patch > > btrfs_alloc_delalloc_work() call still takes 0 as @delay_iput, but in > > next patch the @delay_iput just get removed. > > I'm fine with that, I guess David if you deem it more reasonable you > could squash the 2 patches. I just did it for the sake of bisectability > and review purposes.
Unless the change is too fine-grained, the separate patches are easier to review. In this case, one is removing the member and the other the function arugment, this can be considered 2 logical changes. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
