From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752252AbdBMNhi (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:37:38 -0500 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:39160 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751662AbdBMNhh (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:37:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:37:03 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Sven Schmidt <4sschmid@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> Cc: minchan@kernel.org, ebiggers3@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bongkyu.kim@lge.com, rsalvaterra@gmail.com, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, anton@enomsg.org, ccross@android.com, keescook@chromium.org, tony.luck@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] lz4: fix performance regressions Message-ID: <20170213133703.GC31635@1wt.eu> References: <20170210001311.GA25078@bbox> <1486898178-17125-1-git-send-email-4sschmid@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> <1486898178-17125-2-git-send-email-4sschmid@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> <20170212130508.GA27710@1wt.eu> <20170212152000.GA24704@bierbaron.springfield.local> <20170212214117.GA30583@1wt.eu> <20170213115349.GA22510@bierbaron.springfield.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170213115349.GA22510@bierbaron.springfield.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:53:49PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:41:17PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 04:20:00PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > Hi Sven, > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:16:18PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote: > > > > > Fix performance regressions compared to current kernel LZ4 > > > > > > > > Your patch contains mostly style cleanups which certainly are welcome > > > > but make the whole patch hard to review. These cleanups would have been > > > > better into a separate, preliminary patch IMHO. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Willy > > > > > > Hi Willy, > > > > > > the problem was, I wanted to compare my version to the upstream LZ4 to find bugs (as with my last patch version: wrong indentation in LZ4HC > > > in two for loops). But since the LZ4 code is a pain to read, I made additional style cleanups "on the way". > > > > Oh I can easily understand! > > > > > Hope you can manage to review the patch though, because it is difficult to separate the cleanups now. > > > > When I need to split a patch into pieces, usually what I do is that I > > revert it, re-apply it without committing, then "git add -p", validate > > all the hunks to be taken as the first patch (ie here the cleanups), > > commit, then commit the rest as a separate one. It seems to me that the > > fix is in the last few hunks though I'm not sure yet. > > > > Thanks, > > Willy > > Hi Willy, > > I didn't know about this 'trick' until now. Thanks for sharing it! I gave it a short try recently, that's really cool! > > Since the problem discussed in this branch of this thread seems to be solved (see Minchans E-Mail), I won't split the patches, though. > Or is there an actual need for doing so? I will send an updated patchset (containing these patches + the other ones suggested by Eric) later. It's probably too late for this time, but keep it in mind for next time :-) willy