[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_vn_rename by xfs_vn_rename2

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_vn_rename by xfs_vn_rename2
From: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:56:54 -0200
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20141017093556.GA9146@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <1413397042-32229-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> <1413397042-32229-2-git-send-email-cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> <20141016210457.GA33732@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141017093556.GA9146@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Hi Brian, Chris.

Sorry my delay to reply, I was in a software conference this week, and barely
accessed my e-mails.

I can certainly re-do this patch to avoid the name change.

I used a new name to follow the VFS convention, although I also agree we
'should' get rig of several versions and keep just newer updates to the same

So, I'll re-do this patch and send a V2.


On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:35:56AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 05:04:57PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > The function rename seems unnecessary..? Meh, not a big deal to me
> > either way. Otherwise, this one seems Ok.
> Yeah, we might as well keep the old name.  As far as I'm concerned
> I'd love to get rid of the two different IOPS in the VFS, too.
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs


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