"McMechan, Jim" wrote:
> 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.
I could go along with that.
>
>
> 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.
The lvm files shouldn't have changed much, what was there before.
The xfs tree is at 0.9 beta6 and 2.4.4 is at ... beta2 I believe...
But we'll give it a look no the less.
>
> There also were files that may have been left over "merge#conflicts" and
> "fs/iobuf.2.4.4.c"
That patch was a quick push for anybody wishing to play with 2.4.4,
since the devel tree has been bumped to 2.4.4 the patch has been removed
from oss.
--
Russell Cattelan
--
Digital Elves inc. -- Currently on loan to SGI
Linux XFS core developer.
|