xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 02/12 v3] xfs: Remove the macro XFS_BUF_ZEROFLAGS

To: aelder@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12 v3] xfs: Remove the macro XFS_BUF_ZEROFLAGS
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:21:32 -0700
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1311613642.2914.40.camel@doink>
Organization: IBM
References: <20110722233933.14612.65879.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110722233945.14612.1955.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110724113959.GD26332@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1311609452.2914.23.camel@doink> <20110725162718.GC2434@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1311613642.2914.40.camel@doink>
Reply-to: sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:07 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:27 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:57:32AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > Christoph, are you suggesting that this one hunk just
> > > be excluded from the series?  Or the entire patch?
> > 
> > There's not much more in this patch, so I would suggest dropping it
> > entirely.
> > 
> 
> OK.  I think the later patches may need a little massage
> but I will be happy to work through that.
> 
> Chandra, here is how I plan to proceed with your series:
> - Change that (void *) to a (char *) in patch [8/12]
> - Drop patch [2/12] from the series, and adjust all
>   of its successors in the series accordingly.
> - Run the result through some test cycles
> - Commit it and publish it on oss.sgi.com
> 
> I will not commit the above until I get your OK
> on it, so please let me know if you have any
> objection, or affirm that you have none by
> responding to this message.

I am fine with your direction.

chandra 
> 
> Separately, out of all this came a few other
> suggestions, which would be great for you to
> handle (or reject) if you're open to it:
> - Get rid of the definition and use of xfs_buf_target_name(),
>   by verifying that comparable information is already provided
>   everywhere it's used.
> - Eliminate all references to __psint_t and __psunsigned_t
>   in the XFS code, using uintptr_t in place where it
>   is absolutely necessary.
> - Look into having xfs_qm_dqalloc() return ENOMEM when
>   it is unable to allocate a buffer, and fix all the
>   callers up the chain so they handle such a situation
>   appropriately.  Right now such errors get reset.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>                                       -Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs


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