Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfs\:\s+introduce\s+CONFIG_XFS

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfs\:\s+introduce\s+CONFIG_XFS_WARN\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] xfs: introduce CONFIG_XFS_WARN (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:38:58 +1000; Running a CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG kernel in production environments is not the best idea as it introduces significant overhead, can change the behaviour of algorithms (such as allocation) to improve test co; /archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00504.html (17,705 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] xfs: introduce CONFIG_XFS_WARN (score: 1): Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:49:00 -0400; ... I see some ASSERT() calls using these counters but the macros that manage them appear to be defined against DEBUG only (further down in xfs_trans.h). This looks like it would lead to spurious war; /archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00506.html (8,472 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] xfs: introduce CONFIG_XFS_WARN (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:02:26 +1000; Yes, you are right - it should lead to warnings being emitted, but I didn't see any when running xfstests. I'll fix it up. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00528.html (9,067 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]