xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH -mm] rescue large xfs preferred iosize from the inode diet pa

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] rescue large xfs preferred iosize from the inode diet patch
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:43:17 -0500
Cc: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4513493F.8090005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <45131334.6050803@xxxxxxxxxxx> <45134472.7080002@xxxxxxx> <4513493F.8090005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909)
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Timothy Shimmin wrote:

Looked at your patch and then at our xfs code in the tree and
the existing code is different than what yours is based on.
I then noticed in the logs Nathan has actually made changes for this:

----------------------------
revision 1.254
date: 2006/07/17 10:46:05;  author: nathans;  state: Exp;  lines: +20 -5
modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:26565a
Update XFS for i_blksize removal from generic inode structure
----------------------------
I even reviewed the change (and I don't remember it - getting old).

I looked at the mods scheduled for 2.6.19 and this is one of them.

So the fix for this is coming soon (and the fix is different from the
one above).


Ah, ok, thanks guys.  Should have checked CVS I guess.

-Eric


cc -= lkml;

actually the patch nathan put in seems like a lot of replicated code.

http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/xfs-linux/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c.diff?r1=text&tr1=1.254&r2=text&tr2=1.253&f=h

But maybe he's solving some problem I didn't think of.

Any idea what?

-Eric


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