From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/14] md: move two macros into md.h Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 02:15:53 -0700 Message-ID: <20170327091553.GF6879@infradead.org> References: <20170316161235.27110-1-tom.leiming@gmail.com> <20170316161235.27110-3-tom.leiming@gmail.com> <87tw6j8be6.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20170324165325.nek4kb4yezz2xmow@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170324165325.nek4kb4yezz2xmow@kernel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Shaohua Li Cc: NeilBrown , Ming Lei , Jens Axboe , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:53:25AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote: > > I had the same concern when I looked at this patch firstly. The number for > raid1/10 doesn't need to be the same. But if we don't move the number to a > generic header, the third patch will become a little more complicated. I > eventually ignored this issue. If we really need different number for raid1/10, > lets do it at that time. Which brings up my usual queastion: Is is really that benefitical for us to keep the raid1.c code around instead of making it a special short cut case in raid10.c?