Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[REVIEW\s+\#2\]\s+Update\s+kernel\s+code\s+to\s+compile\s+in\s+userspace\s+$libxfs$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[REVIEW\s+\#2\]\s+Update\s+kernel\s+code\s+to\s+compile\s+in\s+userspace\s+$libxfs$\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

1. [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: ok); Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:56 +1000; Mostly header changes associated with #ifdef __KERNEL__ stuff. Some function prototypes had to be reordered to separate shared and kernel only functions. One thing I don't have clear confirmation on; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00432.html (34,752 bytes)
2. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:59:43 +1000; On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:56 +1000, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx> wrote: Mostly header changes associated with #ifdef __KERNEL__ stuff. Some function prototypes had to be reordered to separate share; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00433.html (13,548 bytes)
3. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:11:20 -0400; I still don't like it very much :) What about just moving the xfs_ictimestamp and xfs_icdinode defintions next to the ifork so that we can save one ifdef __KERNEL__? Also might be worth to move the x; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00437.html (14,680 bytes)
4. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:56:03 +1000; On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:11:20 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 05:59:43PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:56 +1000, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00440.html (21,618 bytes)
5. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:59:50 -0400; Looks good.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00441.html (10,498 bytes)
6. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:06:54 +1000; On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:59:50 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 11:56:03AM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:11:20 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00442.html (11,257 bytes)
7. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:08:27 -0400; Same comments apply - looks good except that in a few places less ifdef blocks would be nice. But we can do thes later if this helps you.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00443.html (9,788 bytes)
8. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: ok); Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:55:24 +1000; On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:08:27 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 12:06:54PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: Looks good. What about the rest ;) Same comments apply - looks; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00445.html (58,786 bytes)
9. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 01:00:45 -0400; Inside structures we should be more careful about reordering, but this one looks fine becaus pagb_list and pagb_lock should be in the same cache line either way. The rest looks good, too.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00446.html (10,548 bytes)
10. [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: Naujok); Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:56 +1000; Mostly header changes associated with #ifdef __KERNEL__ stuff. Some function prototypes had to be reordered to separate shared and kernel only functions. One thing I don't have clear confirmation on; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00880.html (34,752 bytes)
11. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:59:43 +1000; On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:56 +1000, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx> wrote: Mostly header changes associated with #ifdef __KERNEL__ stuff. Some function prototypes had to be reordered to separate share; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00881.html (13,548 bytes)
12. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:11:20 -0400; I still don't like it very much :) What about just moving the xfs_ictimestamp and xfs_icdinode defintions next to the ifork so that we can save one ifdef __KERNEL__? Also might be worth to move the x; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00885.html (14,680 bytes)
13. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:56:03 +1000; On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:11:20 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 05:59:43PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:56 +1000, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00888.html (21,618 bytes)
14. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:59:50 -0400; Looks good.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00889.html (10,498 bytes)
15. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:06:54 +1000; On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:59:50 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 11:56:03AM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:11:20 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00890.html (11,257 bytes)
16. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:08:27 -0400; Same comments apply - looks good except that in a few places less ifdef blocks would be nice. But we can do thes later if this helps you.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00891.html (9,788 bytes)
17. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: Naujok); Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:55:24 +1000; On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:08:27 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 12:06:54PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote: Looks good. What about the rest ;) Same comments apply - looks; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00893.html (58,786 bytes)
18. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 01:00:45 -0400; Inside structures we should be more careful about reordering, but this one looks fine becaus pagb_list and pagb_lock should be in the same cache line either way. The rest looks good, too.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00894.html (10,548 bytes)
19. [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:56 +1000; Mostly header changes associated with #ifdef __KERNEL__ stuff. Some function prototypes had to be reordered to separate shared and kernel only functions. One thing I don't have clear confirmation on; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01328.html (33,096 bytes)
20. Re: [REVIEW #2] Update kernel code to compile in userspace (libxfs) (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:59:43 +1000; Mostly header changes associated with #ifdef __KERNEL__ stuff. Some function prototypes had to be reordered to separate shared and kernel only functions. fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h patch looked pretty horri; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01329.html (13,273 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]