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.
> 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.
> xfs mailing list