Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+5\/5\]\s+implement\s+IHOLD\/IRELE\s+directly\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:49:50 +0200
Now that all direct calls to VN_HOLD/VN_RELE are gone we can implement IHOLD/IRELE directly. For the IHOLD case also replace igrab with a direct increment of i_count because we are guaranteed to alre
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00413.html (10,605 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:55:48 +1000
Seeing as you are changing from an igrab() to a straight atomic_inc(), can you put an: ASSERT(atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count) > 0) into the IHOLD macro so we catch screwups in reference counting as
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00444.html (8,631 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:22:20 +0200
Makes sense, updated patch below. (Half-way through xfsqa with a debug kernel so far) Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Index: linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ksyms.c == -- linux-2.6-x
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00456.html (11,985 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:07:27 +0200
xfsqa passed fine with this patch applied.
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00464.html (7,893 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:21:31 +1000
Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 08:22:20AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Makes sense, updated patch below. (Half-way through xfsqa with a debug kernel so far) xfsqa passed fine wit
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00465.html (8,730 bytes)

6. [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:49:50 +0200
Now that all direct calls to VN_HOLD/VN_RELE are gone we can implement IHOLD/IRELE directly. For the IHOLD case also replace igrab with a direct increment of i_count because we are guaranteed to alre
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01036.html (10,605 bytes)

7. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:55:48 +1000
Seeing as you are changing from an igrab() to a straight atomic_inc(), can you put an: ASSERT(atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count) > 0) into the IHOLD macro so we catch screwups in reference counting as
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01067.html (8,631 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:22:20 +0200
Makes sense, updated patch below. (Half-way through xfsqa with a debug kernel so far) Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Index: linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ksyms.c == -- linux-2.6-x
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01079.html (11,985 bytes)

9. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: hlan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:07:27 +0200
xfsqa passed fine with this patch applied.
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01087.html (7,893 bytes)

10. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:21:31 +1000
Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 08:22:20AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Makes sense, updated patch below. (Half-way through xfsqa with a debug kernel so far) xfsqa passed fine wit
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01088.html (8,730 bytes)

11. [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:49:50 +0200
Now that all direct calls to VN_HOLD/VN_RELE are gone we can implement IHOLD/IRELE directly. For the IHOLD case also replace igrab with a direct increment of i_count because we are guaranteed to alre
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01659.html (10,605 bytes)

12. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:55:48 +1000
Seeing as you are changing from an igrab() to a straight atomic_inc(), can you put an: ASSERT(atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count) > 0) into the IHOLD macro so we catch screwups in reference counting as
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01690.html (8,689 bytes)

13. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:22:20 +0200
Makes sense, updated patch below. (Half-way through xfsqa with a debug kernel so far) Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Index: linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_ksyms.c == -- linux-2.6-x
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01702.html (12,128 bytes)

14. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:07:27 +0200
xfsqa passed fine with this patch applied.
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01710.html (8,039 bytes)

15. Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement IHOLD/IRELE directly (score: 1)
Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:21:31 +1000
Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 08:22:20AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Makes sense, updated patch below. (Half-way through xfsqa with a debug kernel so far) xfsqa passed fine wit
/archives/xfs/2008-07/msg01711.html (8,944 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu