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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+kill\s+leftover\s+WANT_FUNCS\s+macro\s+indirection\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:14:15 -0500; Eric Sandeen wrote: This gets rid of some pointless macro defines... I had a version that lower-cased it all too but Nathan liked this better, and he's the man! :) -Eric Hm, what was the verdict on t; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00101.html (7,752 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: David Chatterton <chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:41:12 +1000; We already have a large number of changes queued up for 2.6.19, I'd prefer that we don't add any more right now unless they are bug fixes. I've raised a pv with the patch so that it doesn't get drop; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00102.html (8,479 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:33:58 -0500; We already have a large number of changes queued up for 2.6.19, I'd prefer that we don't add any more right now unless they are bug fixes. I've raised a pv with the patch so that it doesn't get dropp; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00103.html (9,119 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:14:15 -0500; Eric Sandeen wrote: This gets rid of some pointless macro defines... I had a version that lower-cased it all too but Nathan liked this better, and he's the man! :) -Eric Hm, what was the verdict on t; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00269.html (7,752 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: David Chatterton <chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:41:12 +1000; We already have a large number of changes queued up for 2.6.19, I'd prefer that we don't add any more right now unless they are bug fixes. I've raised a pv with the patch so that it doesn't get drop; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00270.html (8,479 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:33:58 -0500; We already have a large number of changes queued up for 2.6.19, I'd prefer that we don't add any more right now unless they are bug fixes. I've raised a pv with the patch so that it doesn't get dropp; /archives/xfs/2006-09/msg00271.html (9,119 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:45:45 +0200; Am Montag 31 Juli 2006 00:54 schrieb Nathan Scott: Hello Nathan, I fully agree with that - especially as XFS is a file system and regressions can easily have desastrous results. Regards, -- Martin 'H; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00043.html (7,824 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author:; Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:45:45 +0200; Am Montag 31 Juli 2006 00:54 schrieb Nathan Scott: Hello Nathan, I fully agree with that - especially as XFS is a file system and regressions can easily have desastrous results. Regards, -- Martin 'H; /archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00295.html (7,824 bytes)
9. [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:21:27 -0500; This gets rid of some pointless macro defines... I had a version that lower-cased it all too but Nathan liked this better, and he's the man! :) -Eric Remove unnecessary macro indirection - left over; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00356.html (47,964 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: 29 Jul 2006 22:08:21 +0200; Shouted function names is not exactly Linux code style at least. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00363.html (8,046 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:23:05 -0500; Shouted function names is not exactly Linux code style at least. -Andi well, *shrug* I have both versions, Nathan can take his pick :) honestly, one-liner static inlines isn't exactly linux code styl; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00364.html (8,838 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:54:54 +1000; Right, its more that we don't have a great track record at the moment of not introducing regressions with these cleanups (including myself), so I'm becoming more reluctant to do sweeping changes acro; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00371.html (9,545 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: David Chatterton <chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:17:06 +1000; Sam on his previous project had to do significant cleanup/macro changes and wrote some tools to help him do post-preprocessor comparisons to really look at what had changed. I'm not sure how generic; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00374.html (10,459 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:54:27 +0200; In this particular case you can just compare .o or .s files. They should be identical. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00378.html (8,570 bytes)
15. [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:21:27 -0500; This gets rid of some pointless macro defines... I had a version that lower-cased it all too but Nathan liked this better, and he's the man! :) -Eric Remove unnecessary macro indirection - left over; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00746.html (47,964 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: 29 Jul 2006 22:08:21 +0200; Shouted function names is not exactly Linux code style at least. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00753.html (8,046 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:23:05 -0500; Shouted function names is not exactly Linux code style at least. -Andi well, *shrug* I have both versions, Nathan can take his pick :) honestly, one-liner static inlines isn't exactly linux code styl; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00754.html (8,838 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:54:54 +1000; Right, its more that we don't have a great track record at the moment of not introducing regressions with these cleanups (including myself), so I'm becoming more reluctant to do sweeping changes acro; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00761.html (9,545 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: David Chatterton <chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:17:06 +1000; Sam on his previous project had to do significant cleanup/macro changes and wrote some tools to help him do post-preprocessor comparisons to really look at what had changed. I'm not sure how generic; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00764.html (10,459 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:54:27 +0200; In this particular case you can just compare .o or .s files. They should be identical. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00768.html (8,570 bytes)

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