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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+xfs\:\s+remove\s+unused\s+locking\s+flags\s*$/: 39 ]

Total 39 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:53:24 +0400; Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_lrw.c | 10 +++++-- fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 12 +-- fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 4 ++-- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-); /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00057.html (12,246 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:54:54 +1000; NACK. These macros get used by other SGI code (not merged in mainline). Their presence here has zero runtime cost, and keeps merges simpler for me, so they need to stay. Thanks for the cleanup patche; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00060.html (9,192 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:56:43 +0100; I don't think theres a valid reason to keep such dead code around. If you want these flags to stay merge the code in mainline. And while we're at that it would be nice if git tree merges would go via; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00064.html (9,880 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:11:03 +0400; In this case, yes, runtime overhead in nil. What about passing dummy credentials? What about DMAPI stubbed to errors since XFS hit mainline (at least 900 lines which can be removed)? They have runtim; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00065.html (10,254 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:17:11 +1000; Its not dead code. I will and have been happily removing dead code. Well, if it makes my maintenance task more difficult without any gain whatsoever obviously thats not going to happen, sorry. Hmm -; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00067.html (10,487 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:47:24 +1000; Hi Alexey, Yes, what about it? Is there any measurable cost there? Show me, I'm interested, really. If there is, I'm sure we can do things differently to remove that. I'm starting to get a little hes; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00068.html (12,008 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:38:03 +0400; I forgot again... Yes, patch was tested and is OK.; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00069.html (9,984 bytes)
8. RE: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: "Mike Gigante" <mg@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:25:07 +1000; I wouldn't bother generating it either -- we have some very significant work-in-progress that relies on behaviours. Mike; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00070.html (9,133 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:03:49 +1000; Thanks Alexey, patch applied. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00071.html (9,847 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:51:00 +0100; It's 100% dead code in mainline. Please don't push in new code that doesn't do anything. Sorry about the odd reference. I don't really have time to look up the changes for each TAKE message in cvsweb; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00084.html (11,147 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:00:59 +1000; Hi Christoph, No worries. Yeah, sometimes we have new folks coming on board learning the ropes, and sometimes email lists gets b0rked. We also have somewhat oddball processes here so stuff gets dropp; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00098.html (13,569 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:37:19 +0100; Sure, this wasn't a complaint by itself. I happened to me more than often enough. It's just an explanation why it's hard to timely review xfs changes. What would be even more helpfull is of course i; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00111.html (13,762 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:57:23 +0100; Actual the define with the xfs_ prefix and vowels in the identifier is used, sorry. The grepping kernel developer would be a lot happier if both identifiers were spelled either with or without the vo; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00113.html (10,390 bytes)
14. [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:53:24 +0400; Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_lrw.c | 10 +++++-- fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 12 +-- fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 4 ++-- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-); /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00447.html (12,246 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:54:54 +1000; NACK. These macros get used by other SGI code (not merged in mainline). Their presence here has zero runtime cost, and keeps merges simpler for me, so they need to stay. Thanks for the cleanup patche; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00450.html (9,192 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:56:43 +0100; I don't think theres a valid reason to keep such dead code around. If you want these flags to stay merge the code in mainline. And while we're at that it would be nice if git tree merges would go via; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00454.html (9,880 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 21:11:03 +0400; In this case, yes, runtime overhead in nil. What about passing dummy credentials? What about DMAPI stubbed to errors since XFS hit mainline (at least 900 lines which can be removed)? They have runtim; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00455.html (10,254 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:17:11 +1000; Its not dead code. I will and have been happily removing dead code. Well, if it makes my maintenance task more difficult without any gain whatsoever obviously thats not going to happen, sorry. Hmm -; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00457.html (10,487 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:47:24 +1000; Hi Alexey, Yes, what about it? Is there any measurable cost there? Show me, I'm interested, really. If there is, I'm sure we can do things differently to remove that. I'm starting to get a little hes; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00458.html (12,008 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unused locking flags (score: 1): Author: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:38:03 +0400; I forgot again... Yes, patch was tested and is OK.; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00459.html (9,984 bytes)

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