Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfs\:\s+reduce\s+stack\s+usage\s+in\s+xfs_bmap_btalloc\(\)\s*$/: 48 ]

Total 48 documents matching your query.

1. W: 980021 - fix up noattr2 mount option (score: 1)
Author: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:51:02 +0200
e for another couple of days. then it is handed over to a customer. for me, it's not a very important issue, i just meant to report ;) cheers
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00464.html (10,269 bytes)

2. d to 0.6% of EXT3 (3ware hardware raid) (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:54:54 -0500
avid, This patch reduces xfs_bmap_btalloc() stack usage by 50 bytes by moving part of its body into a helper function. This results in some variables not taking stack space in xfs_bmap_btalloc()
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00466.html (10,273 bytes)

3. o Mendo_recce awaits moderator approval (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:02:17 +0200
ike a very good approach, it pushes a lot of large local vars off into the helper. There is one build-time problem if DEBUG is turned on: if (args.fsbno != NULLFSBLOCK) { ap->firstblock = ap->
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00468.html (10,152 bytes)

4. educe stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc() (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:03:47 -0400
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00469.html (22,104 bytes)

5. educe stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc() (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:07:01 -0400
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00470.html (10,391 bytes)

6. merge xfs_mntupdate into xfs_fs_remount (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:26:30 +0200
seless wrapper that doesn't help making the code more readable. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Index: linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c == -- linux-2.6-xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00473.html (10,884 bytes)

7. educe stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc() (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:23:23 -0400
@xxxxxx> Index: linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c == -- linux-2.6-xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00474.html (10,784 bytes)

8. educe stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc() (score: 1)
Author: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:05:17 +0200
ged into xfs_fs_remount. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Index: linux-2.6-xfs
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00475.html (11,826 bytes)

9. educe stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc() (score: 1)
Author: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:45:11 +0200
wig <hch@xxxxxx> Index: linux-2.6-xfs
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00476.html (11,751 bytes)

10. stack usage in xfs_page_state_convert() (score: 1)
Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:40:56 +1000
Benjamin, David, struct kiocb is placed on stack by, for example, do_sync_write(). Eventually it contributes to xfs writeout path's stack usage, among others. This is *the* path which causes 4
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00481.html (10,748 bytes)

11. stack usage in xfs_page_state_convert() (score: 1)
Author: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:57:12 +0200
u please attach your patches inline, Denys (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches)? I have a set of patches that introduces new functionality into the allocator (dynamic allocation policies) that
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00483.html (12,046 bytes)

12. educe stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc() (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:06:51 +1000
ou who asked for patches. It's not like I decided to nag you because I have nothing better to do. Actually, my plate is pretty full with other things already. So I went ahead and actually spend
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00484.html (11,326 bytes)

13. new inode generation numbers to zero V2 (score: 1)
Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:32:49 +1000
t them. Given that an unnoticed error in
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00490.html (11,472 bytes)

14. qa - 008 is unreliable on 64k page size (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:56:29 -0400
e filesyste is using stripe alignment. Fix the test to only look at the unwritten flag. Capture the xfs
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00500.html (10,872 bytes)

15. H 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:32:05 +0200
e re-based my freeze patches from linux-2.6.25-rc7 to linux-2.6.25. There is no functional change from the previous version. The patch-set consists of the following three patches. [PATCH 1/3] I
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00511.html (10,552 bytes)

16. XFS filesystem 20TB size check 2 failed (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:52:33 +1000
rted to the
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg00524.html (10,762 bytes)

17. mediate assistance please call (score: 1)
Author: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:51:02 +0200
I have a gut feeling that there is a small chance to trigger a re-use via nfs operations.
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg01060.html (10,269 bytes)

18. files to 6.6% of EXT3 (software raid) and to 0.6% of EXT3 (3ware hardware raid) (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:54:54 -0500
r another couple of days. then it is handed over to a customer. for me, it's not a very important issue, i just meant to report ;) cheers
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg01062.html (10,273 bytes)

19. age in xfs_bmap_btalloc() (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:02:17 +0200
his patch reduces xfs_bmap_btalloc() stack usage by 50 bytes by moving part of its body into a helper function. This results in some variables not taking stack space in xfs_bmap_btalloc()
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg01064.html (10,152 bytes)

20. ts moderator approval (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:03:47 -0400
ed, 23 Apr 2008 21:48:53 -0400 vous écriviez: You may greatly enhance performance on hardware RAID by using the "nobarrier" mount option. However in this case you must have proper power and/or
/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg01065.html (22,104 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu