Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+0\/18\]\s+xfs\:\s+current\s+patch\s+queue\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+0\/18\]\s+xfs\:\s+current\s+patch\s+queue\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 0/18] xfs: current patch queue (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:10:43 +1000; Here's a repost of my current patch queue. They are all based on Christoph's ilock and xfsbufd patch series and been tested on top of them. I've updated all the reviewed-by tags, so if the patch is m; /archives/xfs/2012-04/msg00768.html (7,940 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 0/18] xfs: current patch queue (score: 1): Author: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:29:11 -0500; Dave, Looks like Christoph has some work to do on patch 4 of his xfsbufd series. Do you want to rebase to something without that patch? Regards, Ben; /archives/xfs/2012-04/msg00834.html (8,878 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 0/18] xfs: current patch queue (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:12:58 +1000; It's a bit of a PITA to do because of all the overlap with Christoph's patch set. I'll spend the afternoon trying to work out what is wrong with Christoph's code, because I think we really need to ge; /archives/xfs/2012-04/msg00842.html (9,499 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 0/18] xfs: current patch queue (score: 1): Author: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:44:44 -0500; Hey Dave, I noticed. ;) Cool. I agree it's great to get rid of xfsbufd, just wanted you to know that the hang is blocking this series. Regards, Ben; /archives/xfs/2012-04/msg00855.html (9,972 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]