Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+23\/26\]\s+implement\s+generic\s+xfs_btree

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+23\/26\]\s+implement\s+generic\s+xfs_btree_delete\/delrec\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 03:35:50 +0200; Make the btree delete code generic. Based on a patch from David Chinner with lots of changes to follow the original btree implementations more closely. While this loses some of the generic helper rou; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00054.html (123,360 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:36:25 +1000; ..... That's kind of messy - can it be pushed out to a separate debug only function? Also, why do we check the inobt against a long pointer, and the allocbt against a short pointer? both are short po; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00071.html (10,234 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 03:45:24 +0200; The old inobt code built a long pointer to pass it to xfs_free_extent, and this assert validates we get the same block. The right thing to do here is to just remove this crap, it was just there to ma; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00075.html (9,789 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:18:34 +1000; I was going to come back to that - I'd noticed that difference but hadn't looked deeply into the change that it would cause. It looks like: a) it releases the old buffer b) clears the readahead statu; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00080.html (11,062 bytes)
5. [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 03:35:50 +0200; Make the btree delete code generic. Based on a patch from David Chinner with lots of changes to follow the original btree implementations more closely. While this loses some of the generic helper rou; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00502.html (123,360 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:36:25 +1000; ..... That's kind of messy - can it be pushed out to a separate debug only function? Also, why do we check the inobt against a long pointer, and the allocbt against a short pointer? both are short po; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00519.html (10,234 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 03:45:24 +0200; The old inobt code built a long pointer to pass it to xfs_free_extent, and this assert validates we get the same block. The right thing to do here is to just remove this crap, it was just there to ma; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00523.html (9,789 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:18:34 +1000; I was going to come back to that - I'd noticed that difference but hadn't looked deeply into the change that it would cause. It looks like: a) it releases the old buffer b) clears the readahead statu; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00528.html (11,062 bytes)
9. [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 03:35:50 +0200; Make the btree delete code generic. Based on a patch from David Chinner with lots of changes to follow the original btree implementations more closely. While this loses some of the generic helper rou; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00950.html (123,360 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:36:25 +1000; ..... That's kind of messy - can it be pushed out to a separate debug only function? Also, why do we check the inobt against a long pointer, and the allocbt against a short pointer? both are short po; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00967.html (10,292 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 03:45:24 +0200; The old inobt code built a long pointer to pass it to xfs_free_extent, and this assert validates we get the same block. The right thing to do here is to just remove this crap, it was just there to ma; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00971.html (9,932 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH 23/26] implement generic xfs_btree_delete/delrec (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:18:34 +1000; I was going to come back to that - I'd noticed that difference but hadn't looked deeply into the change that it would cause. It looks like: a) it releases the old buffer b) clears the readahead statu; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00976.html (11,206 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]