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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8CCC4363A for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB47624640 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:32:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="nCKHTFIq" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S369288AbgJVScx (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:32:53 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54847 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2508325AbgJVScx (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:32:53 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4404181506; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:32:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=7+LBGP25Y+CFQpuPI0sibZOTHPs=; b=nCKHTF IqP0HN91A1SIRG0GkUEF52NddQ8KezkrAC/AIEQ+MvdihWmCHKFBeuDHpGct/PZq gtzEzCpFGCEuzDM3BCWZ8xnuEAopRbQQjaon2/WLakjdhVR/A5jr2AiJcX6T4A0Y UMh1aG8vFXPsLWHB03pn1IMN0zQf0Hb0WaOhA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=NoL+TX6Y2zb1WgYGZd9NDS9l2AXSq50S Tf8Jh2JfgdZlM7kH+panZWpKeQlLvqcSvs9HPwX2Qv0ik6gdgYO5RW3g2V+mYGSo tXuArh4g4TDJJpGFc4bErCmm/2c/GHN2+xMWN/0pZZE8/Vnzq9ZwYVF0/Hv6NwrP cS+bNXkjq0Q= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA4A81503; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:32:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B990C81502; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:32:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Nipunn Koorapati Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fsmonitor inline / testing cleanup References: <20201022174043.GA775513@nand.local> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:32:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201022174043.GA775513@nand.local> (Taylor Blau's message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:40:43 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FE3920B2-1494-11EB-8ACC-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > Hi Nipunn, > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:21:04AM +0000, Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget wrote: >> UPDATE SINCE v1 >> >> * Removed include of dir.h from fsmonitor.h as it's no longer needed > > This version all looks sensible to me. > > I'm still iffy on whether or not this series makes sense to apply > without the rest of the code that depends on it, but I'll leave that up > to Junio whether he wants to take the series as it is now, or wait for > other patches to come in on top. Sorry but I am not sure what you mean by "the code that depends on it". Are these two functions unused anywhere in the code? If so, the right way to clean them up may not be to turn them from inline to a proper definition, but to remove them ;-). If they have existing callers and it can be demonstrated that their callers do not benefit from them being inline, that by itself is a worthy clean-up, without adding any more callers, no? Confused... > In either case, these two patches are: > > Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau > > Thanks, > Taylor