Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\/7\]\s+xfs\:\s+remove\s+xfs_buf_get\s+\/\s+xfs_buf

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\/7\]\s+xfs\:\s+remove\s+xfs_buf_get\s+\/\s+xfs_buf_read\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 2/7] xfs: remove xfs_buf_get / xfs_buf_read (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:17:19 -0500; The two interfaces are highl confusing as they do have a flags argument which gets ignored and replaced with default flags. Switch the few remaining callers to use xfs_buf_get_flags and xfs_buf_read_; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00101.html (14,376 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 2/7] xfs: remove xfs_buf_get / xfs_buf_read (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:15:12 +1100; Personally I would have dropped the *_flags from the function names as well (so everything calls xfs_buf_get() or xfs_buf_read()) but it doesn't really matter.... That looks wider than 80 columns. Sa; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00110.html (10,134 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 2/7] xfs: remove xfs_buf_get / xfs_buf_read (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:03:31 -0500; Maybe. The issue would be if we forward-port some code that expects it can pass random crap in the flags field will get different behaviour now. Then again it'll blow up fast enough to notice.. I'll; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00117.html (10,408 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 2/7] xfs: remove xfs_buf_get / xfs_buf_read (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:40:43 -0600; Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00143.html (17,802 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]