Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+16\/27\]\s+xfs\:\s+avoid\s+usage\s+of\s+struct\s+xfs_dir2

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+16\/27\]\s+xfs\:\s+avoid\s+usage\s+of\s+struct\s+xfs_dir2_block\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 16/27] xfs: avoid usage of struct xfs_dir2_block (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:43:37 -0400; In most places we can simply pass around and use the struct xfs_dir2_data_hdr, which is the first and most important member of struct xfs_dir2_block instead of the full structure. Signed-off-by: Chri; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00032.html (44,072 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 16/27] xfs: avoid usage of struct xfs_dir2_block (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:19:35 +1000; .... Took me a moment to realise what this does - turns the byte swap into a compile-time operation rather than a runtime operation. Nice. Perhaps we should do that same optimisation in other magic n; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00107.html (11,454 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 16/27] xfs: avoid usage of struct xfs_dir2_block (score: 1): Author: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:36:53 -0500; Looks good. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00115.html (10,690 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 16/27] xfs: avoid usage of struct xfs_dir2_block (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 04:35:30 -0400; We should, and I should have been more consistant about it. In fact I probably should split it into a separate patch.; /archives/xfs/2011-07/msg00151.html (11,025 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]