From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9ECC4332F for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B10E610FC for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238565AbhJFLPn (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2021 07:15:43 -0400 Received: from sender11-op-o11.zoho.eu ([31.186.226.225]:17278 "EHLO sender11-op-o11.zoho.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238192AbhJFLPM (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2021 07:15:12 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 905 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 07:15:12 EDT ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1633517886; cv=none; d=zohomail.eu; s=zohoarc; b=NkvigmpN2lInNv7Gqrk0G4+fV3/cq5tU6zPX0kcM/yBvsn9xA4iMjGj46fuCFOQkKy8dNJKtwin4buinUVy6DgjQKHm3tOALbJ8LV5q//JdK7+a2L3iEGigRLVIKaaUenyfCY2HoOOgE8rHWAQfI1Edkiy17hyG8L5vKaRpR5mg= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.eu; s=zohoarc; t=1633517886; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=njNKFVdvs+DDHJXa2WRsdCD49rdXmgKF1c8MkxXWnt8=; b=aRwONLaoHbSqt8m/lEI/cTPau/TuMhDT3dxqukYiu5U3i++WPFshh+Pi7fzLskDZM1qPTZGwgeIKlq1VZFZkCkYGWFi/c40Q+q/KVo3yC/FS8Tb23aZ4Ss1vDdr+vyeay6WSXCWbAadaHLx5pPKccr4Znaxz0uqyS+Rebu10qt4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.eu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jes@trained-monkey.org; dmarc=pass header.from= Received: from [192.168.4.32] (85.184.170.180 [85.184.170.180]) by mx.zoho.eu with SMTPS id 1633517883638242.40005363509636; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:58:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mdadm: split off shared library To: Hannes Reinecke , Xiao Ni Cc: Coly Li , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" References: <7461b27b-2a4b-fbbb-5cfd-8fab416cbc9f@suse.de> <75fdd0fe-154b-f8eb-9ac3-bb948b432e39@suse.de> From: Jes Sorensen Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 06:58:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <75fdd0fe-154b-f8eb-9ac3-bb948b432e39@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ZohoMailClient: External Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org On 9/14/21 3:26 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 9/14/21 9:08 AM, Xiao Ni wrote: >> Hi Hannes >> >> Thanks for these patches. It's a good idea to make codes more clearly >> that which codes belong to which file. >> There are many efforts that move codes from mdadm.c and mdadm.h to >> specific files. Is it better to put these >> patches together? For example, the patches(6, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 27, >> 28) try to clean mdadm.c. Could you put >> similar patches together? And there are some rename patches too, they >> are sporadic. >> > Sure. Wasn't sure how you'd like to handle it; some prefer smaller > patches, some prefer less patches overall ... Sorry I missed this mainly because it had PATCH in the title and I didn't feel the shared library subject was an urgent issue. I am not opposed to splitting things into a shared library, in fact I believe I suggested this to Neil many years ago. I don't remember why it didn't happen at the time. That said, I don't think it's something that is appropriate for 4.2, but rather something to target for 5.0. For something like this I would prefer smaller patches so it's possible to bisect our way back if something broke in the process. Jumbo patches are always wrong. Cheers, Jes