Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+removal\s+of\s+\#define\s+STATIC\s+static\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+removal\s+of\s+\#define\s+STATIC\s+static\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:02:43 -0400; anger'', developed by another company. This is all I know. -- Luben; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00505.html (7,846 bytes)
2. Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 22 Oct 2002 22:09:28 -0500; ida race, as suggested by another third party (see TAKE message from a day or two ago...) It used to say (pseudo-code): if reserved bh pool s; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00506.html (8,517 bytes)
3. Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 05:22:15 +0200; into: bonnie.engr.sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.4.x-xfs Modid: 2.4.x-xfs:slinx:130823a linux/fs/xfs/pagebuf/page_buf.c - 1.69 linux/fs/xfs/pagebuf/pag; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00510.html (8,271 bytes)
4. Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:56:17 +1000; ile(s) were checked into: bonnie.engr.sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.4.x-xfs Modid: 2.4.x-xfs:slinx:130824a linux/fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c - 1.392 linux/fs; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00513.html (9,082 bytes)
5. Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:07:25 +1000; functions in its symbol tables, but debugging (or disassembling) static inline functions with gdb is unreliable. There have been a few times; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00515.html (8,654 bytes)
6. _bh()::page_buf.c (score: 1): Author: Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:02:43 -0400; uld do. BTW, what is the purpose of wake_up_sync()? -- Luben; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01284.html (7,846 bytes)
7. while holding a lock in _pagebuf_free_bh()::page_buf.c (score: 1): Author: Davis <fdavis@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: 22 Oct 2002 22:09:28 -0500; ep it technical. No, I'd _personally_ never do such a thing.; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01285.html (8,517 bytes)
8. sleeping while holding a lock in _pagebuf_free_bh()::page_buf.c (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 05:22:15 +0200; is outdated (no longer used). As a result, I've removed references to the outdated macro in all files except for XF; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01289.html (8,271 bytes)
9. eanup (score: 1): Author: osive_growth@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:56:17 +1000; r.sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.4.x-xfs Modid: 2.4.x-xfs:slinx:130823a linux/fs/xfs/pagebuf/page_buf.c - 1.69 linux/fs/xfs/pagebuf/pag; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01292.html (9,082 bytes)
10. S removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:07:25 +1000; But since CONFIG_KALLSYMS was implemented this is obsolete. gdb should always know about static functions too. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01294.html (8,654 bytes)
11. XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: Frank Davis <fdavis@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:02:43 -0400; Hello all, Per a recent email on linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alan Cox stated that is outdated (no longer used). As a result, I've removed references to the outdated macro in all files except for XF; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02063.html (7,918 bytes)
12. Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 22 Oct 2002 22:09:28 -0500; You mean you could not face all 833 of them which are in there ;-) I can think of better ways to spend an afternoon I have to admit. The only reason I can think of needing this is for symbol tables i; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02064.html (8,565 bytes)
13. Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 05:22:15 +0200; It used to help with old kdb (which didn't know about static functions). But since CONFIG_KALLSYMS was implemented this is obsolete. gdb should always know about static functions too. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02068.html (8,359 bytes)
14. Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:56:17 +1000; kdb has no problems with static functions. gdb has static functions in its symbol tables, but debugging (or disassembling) static inline functions with gdb is unreliable. There have been a few times; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02071.html (9,113 bytes)
15. Re: XFS removal of #define STATIC static (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:07:25 +1000; libxfs shares alot of this code, and it has different scoping requirements to the kernel for a number of functions (& hence is built with STATIC=). Please do not remove the use of STATIC here, there; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02073.html (8,774 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]