Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+9\/9\]\s+Clean\s+up\s+open\s+coded\s+inode\s+dirty\s+checks\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+9\/9\]\s+Clean\s+up\s+open\s+coded\s+inode\s+dirty\s+checks\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:44:22 +1100; Use xfs_inode_clean() in more places. Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> -- fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 27 +++++-- fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.h | 8 ++++++++ fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c | 4 +-- 3 files changed,; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00216.html (12,415 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:02:39 +0000; Can we please get rid of this useless STATIC_INLINE junk? It's really hurting my eyes. As does to a lesser extent the verbose style of this function. This should be something like: static inline int; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00251.html (8,525 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:16:08 +0100 (CET); I have to disagree, but whatever. ^ ^ could be bool - and const Perhaps for greater readability: static inline bool xfs_inode_clean(const struct xfs_inode *ip) { if (ip->i_itemp == NULL) return true;; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00252.html (9,368 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:16:05 +0100 (CET); See - the previous cryptic constructs could not even be decoded ;-) Yeah, something like that. Note: the function SHOULD return bool for this, to quash the ilf_fields & XFS_ILOG_ALL into 0/1.; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00253.html (9,612 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:47:31 -0800; Your code changed the test. xfs_inode.i_update_core is an unsigned char. I believe reordering the tests to avoid a possibly unnecessary dereference is better. if (ip->i_update_core) return false; if; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00254.html (9,002 bytes)
6. [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:44:22 +1100; Use xfs_inode_clean() in more places. Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> -- fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 27 +++++-- fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.h | 8 ++++++++ fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c | 4 +-- 3 files changed,; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00532.html (12,415 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:02:39 +0000; Can we please get rid of this useless STATIC_INLINE junk? It's really hurting my eyes. As does to a lesser extent the verbose style of this function. This should be something like: static inline int; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00567.html (8,525 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:16:08 +0100 (CET); I have to disagree, but whatever. ^ ^ could be bool - and const Perhaps for greater readability: static inline bool xfs_inode_clean(const struct xfs_inode *ip) { if (ip->i_itemp == NULL) return true;; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00568.html (9,368 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:16:05 +0100 (CET); See - the previous cryptic constructs could not even be decoded ;-) Yeah, something like that. Note: the function SHOULD return bool for this, to quash the ilf_fields & XFS_ILOG_ALL into 0/1.; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00569.html (9,612 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH 9/9] Clean up open coded inode dirty checks (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:47:31 -0800; Your code changed the test. xfs_inode.i_update_core is an unsigned char. I believe reordering the tests to avoid a possibly unnecessary dereference is better. if (ip->i_update_core) return false; if; /archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00570.html (9,002 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]