On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 08:19:58AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/21/18 8:03 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Sun, May 20 2018 at 6:25pm -0400, > > Kent Overstreet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Jens - this series does the rest of the conversions that Christoph wanted, > >> and > >> drops bioset_create(). > >> > >> Only lightly tested, but the changes are pretty mechanical. Based on your > >> for-next tree. > > > > By switching 'mempool_t *' to 'mempool_t' and 'bio_set *' to 'bio_set' > > you've altered the alignment of members in data structures. So I'll > > need to audit all the data structures you've modified in DM. > > > > Could we get the backstory on _why_ you're making this change? > > Would go a long way to helping me appreciate why this is a good use of > > anyone's time. > > Yeah, it's in the first series, it gets rid of a pointer indirection.
This should to be also mentioned the changelog of each patch. There are 12 subsystems changed, this could be about 10 maintainers and I guess everybody has the same question why the change is made. The conversion is not exactly the same in all patches, the simple pointer -> static variable can be possibly covered by the same generic text but as Mike points out the alignment changes should be at least mentioned for consideration otherwise.
