| To: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] One more bugfix for xfs_lowbit64 |
| From: | Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 22 Aug 2003 16:02:13 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030822201012.GA19026@averell> |
| Organization: | |
| References: | <20030822201012.GA19026@averell> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 15:10, Andi Kleen wrote: > (mea culpa). The error return was broken too, it would return -2, > not -1 for errors. Makes no difference in the callers, they never check > for -1, but is still better to conform to the spec. Thanks Andi, this did have to happen one day after 1.3 didn't it. I will push it around various places, time for another push to Linus I guess. Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Processes stuck in D state (leading to extremely high load), Stefan Roehrich |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] One more bugfix for xfs_lowbit64, Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] One more bugfix for xfs_lowbit64, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] One more bugfix for xfs_lowbit64, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |