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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfs\:\s+kill\s+xfs_qmops\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] xfs: kill xfs_qmops (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:37:36 -0500; Kill the quota ops function vector and replace it with direct calls or stubs in the CONFIG_XFS_QUOTA=n case. Make sure we check XFS_IS_QUOTA_RUNNING in the right spots. We can remove the number of th; /archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00432.html (88,080 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill xfs_qmops (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:55:29 -0400; ping? --end quoted text--; /archives/xfs/2009-03/msg00166.html (111,836 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill xfs_qmops (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:44:09 -0400; ping^2? --end quoted text--; /archives/xfs/2009-03/msg00294.html (121,094 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill xfs_qmops (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:34:49 -0500; a few nitpicks & questions below Just wondering about the reason for this change? in xfs_ioctl_setattr() it's a little weird because you gave udqp & gdqp the same treatment, but not olddquot (which i; /archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00230.html (18,800 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill xfs_qmops (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 05:56:18 -0400; Seemd like a merge error to me. I've reverted these bits and now leave them as they were before. XFS_IS_QUOTA_RUNNING/XFS_IS_QUOTA_ON is indeed extremly confusing. For now I'd like to keep is as-is a; /archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00242.html (95,814 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] xfs: kill xfs_qmops (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:06:25 -0500; Looks better to me now, thanks. Though worrisome that quota doesn't seem well-tested in xfsqa, as you said... but as far as I can tell seems ok now. Have arekm test it a bit too ;) Reviewed-by: Eric; /archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00259.html (9,533 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]