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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Introduce\s+xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork\.\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:25:26 +1000; I was kind of expecting the transaction, &tp, to be passed into xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork(). (And then xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork() which calls xfs_bmap_finish() which calls xfs_trans_dup() and so; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00024.html (10,386 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:39:52 +1000; No you're right, it took me a while to remember you're working out of git. I haven't really re-read it properly yet but thanks for this one. Cheers, -- Niv Sardi; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00029.html (9,448 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:25:26 +1000; I was kind of expecting the transaction, &tp, to be passed into xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork(). (And then xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork() which calls xfs_bmap_finish() which calls xfs_trans_dup() and so; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00647.html (10,386 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:39:52 +1000; No you're right, it took me a while to remember you're working out of git. I haven't really re-read it properly yet but thanks for this one. Cheers, -- Niv Sardi; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00652.html (9,448 bytes)
5. [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:42:29 +1000; That takes a transaction and doesn't require everything to be locked anymore. this uses the roll trans call. Signed-off-by: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx> -- fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00254.html (15,671 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:28:56 -0400; Care to add this below xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork? Also please us struct xfs_inode instead of the typedef. I think it would be much cleaner if all the transaction setup, joining etc was done in xfs; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00351.html (15,651 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:42:17 +1000; Updated patch attached, Moved case where there is no transaction back into xfs_bmap_add_attrfork() and rely on caller to call xfs_trans_roll(), [...] Done, [...] I think I got it right, but error han; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00384.html (10,862 bytes)
8. [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:18:00 +1000; That takes a transaction and doesn't require everything to be locked anymore. This doesn't commit the transaction ! so direct callers, willing to use xfs_trans_roll() should do it themselves. Change; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00385.html (13,975 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:02:21 +1000; ..... That's clearly busted. if (tpp) *tpp = tp; ditto. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00435.html (10,479 bytes)
10. [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:42:29 +1000; That takes a transaction and doesn't require everything to be locked anymore. this uses the roll trans call. Signed-off-by: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx> -- fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00714.html (15,671 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:28:56 -0400; Care to add this below xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork? Also please us struct xfs_inode instead of the typedef. I think it would be much cleaner if all the transaction setup, joining etc was done in xfs; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00811.html (15,651 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:42:17 +1000; Updated patch attached, Moved case where there is no transaction back into xfs_bmap_add_attrfork() and rely on caller to call xfs_trans_roll(), [...] Done, [...] I think I got it right, but error han; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00844.html (10,862 bytes)
13. [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:18:00 +1000; That takes a transaction and doesn't require everything to be locked anymore. This doesn't commit the transaction ! so direct callers, willing to use xfs_trans_roll() should do it themselves. Change; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00845.html (13,975 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:02:21 +1000; ..... That's clearly busted. if (tpp) *tpp = tp; ditto. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00895.html (10,479 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:25:26 +1000; I was kind of expecting the transaction, &tp, to be passed into xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork(). (And then xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork() which calls xfs_bmap_finish() which calls xfs_trans_dup() and so; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01270.html (10,842 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:39:52 +1000; No you're right, it took me a while to remember you're working out of git. I haven't really re-read it properly yet but thanks for this one. Cheers, -- Niv Sardi; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01275.html (9,901 bytes)
17. [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:42:29 +1000; That takes a transaction and doesn't require everything to be locked anymore. this uses the roll trans call. Signed-off-by: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx> -- fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg01174.html (15,855 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:28:56 -0400; Care to add this below xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork? Also please us struct xfs_inode instead of the typedef. I think it would be much cleaner if all the transaction setup, joining etc was done in xfs; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg01271.html (15,881 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:42:17 +1000; Updated patch attached, Moved case where there is no transaction back into xfs_bmap_add_attrfork() and rely on caller to call xfs_trans_roll(), [...] Done, [...] I think I got it right, but error han; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg01304.html (11,106 bytes)
20. [PATCH] Introduce xfs_trans_bmap_add_attrfork. (score: 1): Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:18:00 +1000; That takes a transaction and doesn't require everything to be locked anymore. This doesn't commit the transaction ! so direct callers, willing to use xfs_trans_roll() should do it themselves. Change; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg01305.html (13,975 bytes)

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