xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] XFS bitops to Linux again

To: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] XFS bitops to Linux again
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:10:46 -0500
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <34787.192.168.3.1.1191530551.squirrel@mail.aconex.com>
References: <200710040027.16926.ak@suse.de> <60338.192.168.3.1.1191452291.squirrel@mail.aconex.com> <200710041014.22936.ak@suse.de> <34787.192.168.3.1.1191530551.squirrel@mail.aconex.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530)
nscott@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Great.  You're light years ahead of the rest of the cleanup brigade. :)

Hey, I resemble that remark!  :)

(FWIW, I too first ran through xfsqa with both calculations in place,
and caused it to complain loudly if there was a mismatch.  Not 100%
coverage, but I'm not trying to do this half-assed either...)

>> I did also some simple tests using the QA suite -- i believe a few logs
>> were recovered -- but not the full tests.
> 
> From a quick look, tests 085, 086 and 087 are the ones I was thinking of
> yesterday.
> 
>>> To be honest, this sounds like just code churn and risk
>>> introduction.
>> Ok I got the message. I retract the patch. Sorry for bothering you
>> with lowly cleanups.
> 
> Hey, I like cleanup as much as the next guy (as long as the next guy isn't
> Eric,
> he just lives to clean ;)

If I do any real work I might lose my job ;-) </joke>

> - also always ignores userspace despite knowing
> better)

Nah, I just forget.

-Eric


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