On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:42:01AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> So this implies the current implementation is not good enough for review.
> >
> > I'd say the code hasn't been cleaned up for a long time so it's not good
> > enough for adding new features and doing broader fixes. The v2 rework
> >
At 01/25/2017 12:37 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:44:00AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 01/24/2017 01:54 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 02:56:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Since we have the whole facilities needed to rollback, switch to the new
rollback.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:44:00AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> At 01/24/2017 01:54 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 02:56:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> Since we have the whole facilities needed to rollback, switch to the new
> >> rollback.
> >
> > Sorry, the change from
At 01/24/2017 01:54 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 02:56:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Since we have the whole facilities needed to rollback, switch to the new
rollback.
Sorry, the change from patch 4 to patch 5 seems too big to grasp for me,
reviewing is really hard and I'm
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 02:56:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Since we have the whole facilities needed to rollback, switch to the new
> rollback.
Sorry, the change from patch 4 to patch 5 seems too big to grasp for me,
reviewing is really hard and I'm not sure I could even do that. My
concern is
On Monday, December 19, 2016 02:56:41 PM Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Since we have the whole facilities needed to rollback, switch to the new
> rollback.
>
> The new rollback function can handle the following things that old
> rollback either can't handle or just refuse to rollback:
>
> 1) New converted
