xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Browsing xfs-TEST

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Browsing xfs-TEST
From: "McMechan, Jim" <McMechanJW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 15:46:54 -0700
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
I had previously applied the linux "patch-2.4.4" to a 2.4.3-xfs tree and
examined the rejects
comparing it to the recent patch "linux-2.4.4-xfs-TEST.patch"

The "unsigned char s_posix_acl_flag" in "struct super_block" in
"include/linux/fs.h" is between two longs "s_flags" and "s_magic" this
produces the worst packing of a structure is it intended to be in the same
cache line or some other reason? tucking it after "unsigned char s_dirt"
would have a better packing, I think.

The "unsigned long block[]" and "ulong block[]" declarations are back in
"drivers/md/lvm-snap.c" "lvm_snapshot_COW" and "lvm_write_COW_table_block"
was it intended to return to local arrays?

The b_dev vs b_rdev in drivers/md/lvm.c 1111 "MINOR(bh->b_rdev) and 1140
"kdevname(bh->b_rdev)" also have disapeared Jens Axboe's comment about
destroyed stacking devices made me leery in this section.

There also were files that may have been left over "merge#conflicts" and
"fs/iobuf.2.4.4.c"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>