| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25 |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:58:53 -0600 |
| Cc: | Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20080209045645.GB1428@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20080208022705.0DB1058C4C11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47AD284F.7080603@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20080209045645.GB1428@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) |
Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 10:13:03PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >>> Please pull from the for-linus branch: >>> git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus >>> >>> This will update the following files: >>> >>> fs/xfs/Makefile-linux-2.6 | 1 - >> Is there a reason the other various makefile updates still haven't been >> pushed? They're a lot tidier now, and they facilitate out-of-tree >> building... > > Well, the makefiles are pretty different for CVS vs mainline to modular > quota and dmapi. I'm thinking about doing a proof of concept modular > quota patch for mainline and if it doesn't get too ugly that would > mean the makefiles are a lot more in sync. Even if they differ, they can still get the same basic treatment. I'll make a patch if desired. The current kernel.org makefiles are a mess, IMHO :) -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |