Message ID | 20200225062351.21267-1-dgilbert@interlog.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | scsi_debug: host managed ZBC + doublestore | expand |
Evening Doug! > The major addition is support for host-managed ZBC devices. The bulk > of the work in this area was done by Damien Le Moal. It allows ZBC > devices with a mix of conventional and "sequential write required" > zones to be specified. [...] > The lower numbered patches in this set contain various measures to > improve the speed and usefulness of this driver. It is being used to > test the rewrite of the SCSI generic (sg) driver which is still > underway. These really should be separate series. One for the ZBC stuff (which generally looks OK), one for the backing store enablement, and maybe one for the general improvements that do not have other dependencies. It's much more manageable for reviewers when things come in smaller batches. Once a posted series has been merged, you can rebase your working tree and submit the next batch of 5-10 patches. Thanks!
On 2020-04-13 7:19 p.m., Martin K. Petersen wrote: in response to the cover letter of a patchset sent: 2020-02-25, 1:23 a.m. which is 7 weeks ago! > Evening Doug! > >> The major addition is support for host-managed ZBC devices. The bulk >> of the work in this area was done by Damien Le Moal. It allows ZBC >> devices with a mix of conventional and "sequential write required" >> zones to be specified. > > [...] > >> The lower numbered patches in this set contain various measures to >> improve the speed and usefulness of this driver. It is being used to >> test the rewrite of the SCSI generic (sg) driver which is still >> underway. > > These really should be separate series. One for the ZBC stuff (which > generally looks OK), one for the backing store enablement, and maybe one > for the general improvements that do not have other dependencies. But other things such as the "ZBC stuff" have dependencies on those general improvements in obvious (i.e. seen by git) and subtle ways. > It's much more manageable for reviewers when things come in smaller > batches. Once a posted series has been merged, you can rebase your > working tree and submit the next batch of 5-10 patches. I believe you overvalue the review process, it is mainly window dressing, unevenly applied. Doug Gilbert