| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/10] merge xfs_unmount into xfs_fs_put_super / xfs_fs_fill_super |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 12 May 2008 01:43:27 -0400 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20080512022138.GX155679365@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20080501220048.GA2315@xxxxxx> <20080512022138.GX155679365@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:21:38PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > + if (mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_DMAPI) {
> > + XFS_SEND_UNMOUNT(mp, rip, DM_RIGHT_NULL, 0, 0,
> > + unmount_event_flags);
> > + }
>
> #ifdef HAVE_DMAPI around this chunk? I know the old code didn't,
> but it would then match the pre-unmount event hunk above...
We don't have #ifdefs around the other dmapi namespace bits. In fact
I'd prefer to kill the one above aswell. It's on my todo list because
I wan't to prove that using the normal event enabled macros are safe
in the unmount path first and just switch to those.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/10] merge xfs_unmount into xfs_fs_put_super / xfs_fs_fill_super, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/10] sort out opening and closing of the block devices, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/10] merge xfs_unmount into xfs_fs_put_super / xfs_fs_fill_super, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 2/10] merge xfs_mount into xfs_fs_fill_super, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |