Re: [PATCH 00/32] btrfs: preparation patches for subpage support

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2804 bytes --]



On 2020/11/6 上午3:28, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 11/3/20 8:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> This is the rebased preparation branch for all patches not yet merged
>> into
>> misc-next.
>> It can be fetched from github:
>> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/subpage_prep_rebased
>>
>> This patchset includes all the unmerged preparation patches for subpage
>> support.
>>
>> The patchset is sent without the main core for subpage support, as
>> myself has proven that, big patchset bombarding won't really make
>> reviewers happy, but only make the author happy (for a very short time).
>>
>> But we still got 32 patches for them, thus we still need a summary for
>> the patchset:
>>
>> Patch 01~21:    Generic preparation patches.
>>         Mostly pave the way for metadata and data read.
>>
>> Patch 22~24:    Recent btrfs_lookup_bio_sums() cleanup
>>         The most subpage unrelated patches, but still helps
>>         refactor related functions for incoming subpage support.
>>
>> Patch 25~32:    Scrub support for subpage.
>>         Since scrub is completely unrelated to regular data/meta
>>           read write, the scrub support for subpage can be
>>         implemented independently and easily.
> 
> Please use btrfs-setup-git-hooks in the btrfs-workflow tree, I made it 2
> patches in before checkpatch blew up on something that really should be
> fixed.

And something that checkpatch is the one to be fixed:

ERROR:SPACING: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
#36: FILE: fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1504:
+       type *p = page_address(eb->pages[0]) + offset_in_page(eb->start); \

That script considering we're doing multiply, not declaration.

No, checkpatch should either be a soft requirement (only warns, not to
interrupt applying due to such stupid bug), or shouldn't be included
into the hook at all.

Yes, I know there are stupid format bugs, but just let me know and I
could do a run to filter out the real format errors, not being
interrupted for every stupid existing bugs, like usage of 'unsigned'.

To add more irony to this, my later patches will replace the 'unsigned'
with 'u32', and the damn checkpatch just won't let me continue.

Anyway, I have remove the checkpatch git hooks for now, only keeps the
codespell one, and will do a manual run on the patchset.

> Generally I'll just ignore silly failures, but for a series this
> large it really should cleanly apply and adhere to normal coding
> standards so I don't have to waste time addressing those sort of
> mistakes.  Thanks,

Yeah, but when a large set of patches touching tons of old codes, such
stubborn hook is really not the proper way to address problems.

Thanks,
Qu

> 
> Josef


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]