| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | TAKE - xfs_zero_eof |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:10:15 +1100 (EST) |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Cherrypick this change from my SIM-less workarea - might
help with a real problem. Found this after cleaning up
the headers a whole lot...
cheers.
Modid: 2.4.0-test1-xfs:slinx:74352a
Date: Wed Sep 13 18:07:30 PDT 2000
Workarea: snort:/build4/nathans/base-linux-xfs
Author: nathans
The following file(s) were checked into:
bonnie.engr.sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.4.0-test1-xfs
linux/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c - 1.302
linux/fs/xfs/xfs_rw.c - 1.326
- pass the right number of arguments into xfs_zero_eof().
linux/fs/xfs/xfs_rw.h - 1.55
- match the xfs_zero_eof declaration up with the current source.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Can any one explain this behavior?, Steve Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Can any one explain this behavior?, Keith Owens |
| Previous by Thread: | Can any one explain this behavior?, William L Jones |
| Next by Thread: | Should open_by_inode have a special dentry ops?, William L Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |