[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 04/14] repair: split up scanfunc_ino

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] repair: split up scanfunc_ino
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:32 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20091013221946.GB31385@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20090902175531.469184575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090902175840.403232401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AD38C50.2060403@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20091013221946.GB31385@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090320)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:06:40PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> +                                   agno, agbno,
>>> +                           mp->m_sb.sb_inopblock);
>> pretty weird indentation here can't you just merge w/ previous line?

I get that...

+_("inode chunk claims used block, inobt block - agno %d, bno %d, inopb
+                                       agno, agbno,
+                               mp->m_sb.sb_inopblock);

the unindented string is fine but the 3rd line in the paste above
could/should be merged w/ the 2nd.


> XFS (especially userspace code) uses this in lots of places.  Gives
> more space to messages but keeps the normal arguments normally aligned.
>> Also is the change from bno to agbno intentional in the message?
>> I guess it's fine.
> That version is more correct.  Don't remember how it got in, though.

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