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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS_BUF_ORDERED\s+instead\s+of\s+XFS_BUF_ISORDERED\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:12:06 -0400; Hi folks, While doing a little light reading, I noticed the following in fs/xfs/xfs_log.c:1011 (in the 2.6.26.3 Linux kernel tree). Am I missing something, or should XFS_BUF_ORDERED be replaced with; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00386.html (7,789 bytes)
2. Re: XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:16:16 -0500; wow, I think you're right. Fortunately I dont' think this does much harm in most cases - the buffer is usually ordered here anyway, and we're re-setting it instead of testing it, as you noticed. But; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00387.html (8,973 bytes)
3. Re: XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:09:27 +1000; Yes, it is wrong. Well spotted. I guess this shows that I was right when I complained about needing this untestable barrier handling code in every filesystem.... Patch below. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Ch; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00393.html (9,248 bytes)
4. XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:12:06 -0400; Hi folks, While doing a little light reading, I noticed the following in fs/xfs/xfs_log.c:1011 (in the 2.6.26.3 Linux kernel tree). Am I missing something, or should XFS_BUF_ORDERED be replaced with; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00834.html (7,789 bytes)
5. Re: XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:16:16 -0500; wow, I think you're right. Fortunately I dont' think this does much harm in most cases - the buffer is usually ordered here anyway, and we're re-setting it instead of testing it, as you noticed. But; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00835.html (8,973 bytes)
6. Re: XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:09:27 +1000; Yes, it is wrong. Well spotted. I guess this shows that I was right when I complained about needing this untestable barrier handling code in every filesystem.... Patch below. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Ch; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00841.html (9,248 bytes)
7. XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: "Nathaniel W. Turner" <nate@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:12:06 -0400; Hi folks, While doing a little light reading, I noticed the following in fs/xfs/xfs_log.c:1011 (in the 2.6.26.3 Linux kernel tree). Am I missing something, or should XFS_BUF_ORDERED be replaced with; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01282.html (7,838 bytes)
8. Re: XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:16:16 -0500; wow, I think you're right. Fortunately I dont' think this does much harm in most cases - the buffer is usually ordered here anyway, and we're re-setting it instead of testing it, as you noticed. But; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01283.html (9,021 bytes)
9. Re: XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:09:27 +1000; Yes, it is wrong. Well spotted. I guess this shows that I was right when I complained about needing this untestable barrier handling code in every filesystem.... Patch below. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Ch; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01289.html (9,296 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]