Re: [PATCH] Implement the sync libnetfs stubs.

[Sergiu Ivanov]

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:19:17PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 08:08:20AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 03:56:02AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:30:41PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > So there is no other way to associate the two lists? This is ugly
> > > indeed. In this case, I think it would be better not to use the iterator
> > > at all -- what you did here looks really hackish, and it breaks the
> > > iterator paradigm anyways...
> > 
> > Yeah, true, it breaks the paradigm.  However, I actually borrowed this
> > piece of code from node_init_root (node.c), so this is the style used
> > in unionfs.  Should I forget about consistency in this case, what do
> > you think?
> 
> Go for consistency, and add something like ``TODO: this should be
> rewritten like this: ..., because ...''.  [...]

OK.  I'll do that.
  
> So.  Sergiu, if you need specific review of some parts of this patch (or
> any other patches), then please say so, otherwise please get it
> installed.  I assume that you can confirm in some way (testing, staring
> at the code, ...) that it does the correct thing.  And should there be
> any breakage, and we discover it later on, we'll repair it later on.  We
> can't address or even fix all potential design or implementation
> odditites of the unionfs code in this single discussion thread.

OK.  I'll install the patch today, after having added the ``TODO:...''
comment.
 
> I hope that these words of mine aren't seen as an affront against the
> lots of time that you people invest in discussing patches, writing
> emails, etc. -- which is absolutely not my intention! -- but, yeah, let's
> get something DONE!  :-)

OK :-)

Regards,
scolobb