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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*REVIEW\:\s+xfs_metadump\s+improvements\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:07:45 +1000; (This is why no new xfsprogs tarball has been released yet Eric!) On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:53:53 +1000, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx> wrote: Based on what I found in xfs_check, I fixed up xfs_metadum; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00391.html (18,403 bytes)
2. Re: REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:12:08 -0400; That's the pop_cur bits and they look sane to me. Also looks good, but mixing these two up in the same commit doesn't seem like a good idea.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00402.html (7,696 bytes)
3. Re: REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:07:45 +1000; (This is why no new xfsprogs tarball has been released yet Eric!) On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:53:53 +1000, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx> wrote: Based on what I found in xfs_check, I fixed up xfs_metadum; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00839.html (18,403 bytes)
4. Re: REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:12:08 -0400; That's the pop_cur bits and they look sane to me. Also looks good, but mixing these two up in the same commit doesn't seem like a good idea.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00850.html (7,696 bytes)
5. REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:53:53 +1000; Based on what I found in xfs_check, I fixed up xfs_metadump in the same way. Also, I've increased the default maximum expected extent size for a directory, as in practice, 400 block extents for direc; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00447.html (17,638 bytes)
6. REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:53:53 +1000; Based on what I found in xfs_check, I fixed up xfs_metadump in the same way. Also, I've increased the default maximum expected extent size for a directory, as in practice, 400 block extents for direc; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00907.html (17,638 bytes)
7. Re: REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:07:45 +1000; Ping? (This is why no new xfsprogs tarball has been released yet Eric!) Based on what I found in xfs_check, I fixed up xfs_metadump in the same way. Also, I've increased the default maximum expected; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01287.html (17,480 bytes)
8. Re: REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:12:08 -0400; That's the pop_cur bits and they look sane to me. Also looks good, but mixing these two up in the same commit doesn't seem like a good idea.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01298.html (7,802 bytes)
9. REVIEW: xfs_metadump improvements (score: 1): Author: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:53:53 +1000; Based on what I found in xfs_check, I fixed up xfs_metadump in the same way. Also, I've increased the default maximum expected extent size for a directory, as in practice, 400 block extents for direc; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg01367.html (16,787 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]