Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+kill\s+no\-op\s+buf\s+macros\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:24:44 +1000
XFS_BUF_ISBUSY() is only ever used in ASSERT() statements, so I think that can go. On 2.4: The XBF_FORCEIO affects how we do partial page I/O on 2.4, but is unused on 2.6. On 2.4, if the flag is set,
/archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00066.html (9,841 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:43:49 -0500
This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. XFS_BUF_ISBUSY() is only ever used in ASSERT() statements, so I think that ca
/archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00067.html (9,154 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:24:44 +1000
XFS_BUF_ISBUSY() is only ever used in ASSERT() statements, so I think that can go. On 2.4: The XBF_FORCEIO affects how we do partial page I/O on 2.4, but is unused on 2.6. On 2.4, if the flag is set,
/archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00318.html (9,841 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:43:49 -0500
This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. XFS_BUF_ISBUSY() is only ever used in ASSERT() statements, so I think that ca
/archives/xfs/2006-08/msg00319.html (9,154 bytes)

5. [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:41:09 -0500
It looks like these macros are not particularly interesting... this patch kills Thanks, -Eric linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h | 16 -- quota/xfs_dquot.c | 7 -- xfs_alloc.c | 2 -- xfs_btree.c | 13 -- xfs_buf_item.
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00366.html (25,302 bytes)

6. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:08:15 +1000
Hmm, I'm not sure about some of these.. This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. Ditto (not used on 2.4 though, but st
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00372.html (9,266 bytes)

7. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:25:51 -0500
This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. Grr, just realized my cvs checkout didn't even pull linux-2.4 :/ Suppose I'd
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00375.html (8,570 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:03:09 -0500
This can go, unwritten extents don't use this interface on Linux. *nod* - looks like it should go. (could you regen the patch with just these two for now? they are pretty much self-contained changes,
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00380.html (10,525 bytes)

9. [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:41:09 -0500
It looks like these macros are not particularly interesting... this patch kills Thanks, -Eric linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h | 16 -- quota/xfs_dquot.c | 7 -- xfs_alloc.c | 2 -- xfs_btree.c | 13 -- xfs_buf_item.
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00756.html (25,302 bytes)

10. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:08:15 +1000
Hmm, I'm not sure about some of these.. This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. Ditto (not used on 2.4 though, but st
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00762.html (9,266 bytes)

11. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:25:51 -0500
This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. Grr, just realized my cvs checkout didn't even pull linux-2.4 :/ Suppose I'd
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00765.html (8,570 bytes)

12. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:03:09 -0500
This can go, unwritten extents don't use this interface on Linux. *nod* - looks like it should go. (could you regen the patch with just these two for now? they are pretty much self-contained changes,
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00770.html (10,525 bytes)

13. [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:41:09 -0500
It looks like these macros are not particularly interesting... this patch kills them. Thanks, -Eric linux-2.6/xfs_buf.h | 16 -- quota/xfs_dquot.c | 7 -- xfs_alloc.c | 2 -- xfs_btree.c | 13 -- xfs_buf
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg01146.html (25,257 bytes)

14. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:08:15 +1000
Hmm, I'm not sure about some of these.. This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. Ditto (not used on 2.4 though, but st
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg01152.html (9,357 bytes)

15. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:25:51 -0500
Hmm, I'm not sure about some of these.. This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. Grr, just realized my cvs checkout di
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg01155.html (8,697 bytes)

16. Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:03:09 -0500
This can go, unwritten extents don't use this interface on Linux. *nod* - looks like it should go. (could you regen the patch with just these two for now? they are pretty much self-contained changes
/archives/xfs/2006-07/msg01160.html (10,601 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu