xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble

from [Eric Sandeen] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Sean Elble <S_Elble@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 07 Nov 2001 10:30:02 -0600
Cc: Tux mailing list <tux-list@xxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <03bd01c16739$2318cff0$0a00a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111061027590.4999-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <02bb01c16720$7fd7d470$0a00a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3BE8A074.8494050A@xxxxxxx> <03bd01c16739$2318cff0$0a00a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx 
Hi Sean - I guess I wasn't quite clear.  That 48k refers only to code
changes in the core linux kernel, and does NOT include fs/pagebuf,
fs/xfs, or fs/xfs_support.

-Eric

On Tue, 2001-11-06 at 21:05, Sean Elble wrote:
> Whoa . . . I didn't realize that the patch was only 48k. But does that
> include all the XFS "dependences", like the Page Buffer code, etc.? I would
> imagine that it does, but just checking . . .  

-- 
Eric Sandeen      XFS for Linux     http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
sandeen@xxxxxxx   SGI, Inc.
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  RE: xfs and nfs, Christian, Chip
Next by Date:  Re: xfs_growfs -m, Steve Lord
Previous by Thread:  Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble, Sean Elble
Next by Thread:  Re: XFS+Tux = patch trouble, Sean Elble
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]