Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*loop\-6\s+and\s+the\s+XFS\s+tree\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*loop\-6\s+and\s+the\s+XFS\s+tree\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: 27 Feb 2001 08:21:02 GMT; just tried to apply the loop-6 patch to the XFS tree (which works fine with plain 2.4.2) i ran into the following: kgcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/tmp/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fno-strict-ali; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00411.html (9,059 bytes)
2. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:38:39 +0100; Yeah, the lurker, that's me :-) Anways, change the generic_make_request in loop to something like: generic_make_request(rw, bh, NULL, 0, 0, 0); return 0; and loop_make_request definition to: static i; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00412.html (9,483 bytes)
3. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: 28 Feb 2001 10:01:05 GMT; i assume the kio_buf is kiobuf above? - then it compiles fine (only sidething is: loop.c: In function `loop_init': loop.c:956: warning: passing arg 2 of `blk_queue_make_request' from incompatible poi; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00423.html (10,720 bytes)
4. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:27:12 +0100; Yes of course, sorry. Maybe because the xfs tree doesn't quite agree on what make_request_fn should look like. Make the size_t unsigned int instead in loop and rd. -- Jens Axboe; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00429.html (8,528 bytes)
5. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:50:21 +0100; My mistake, I was looking at the wrong function. There's no mixup in the xfs tree. -- Jens Axboe; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00430.html (8,370 bytes)
6. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:56:58 +0100; I would provide a patch for rd too, but the tree still has the kgcc stupidity that prevents me from compiling. Yes I could fix it easily, but it annoys me heavily that such a change was made blindly; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00431.html (8,554 bytes)
7. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:32:37 +0100; I would provide a patch for rd too, but the tree still has the kgcc stupidity that prevents me from compiling. Yes I could fix it easily, but it annoys me heavily that such a change was made blindly; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00432.html (9,100 bytes)
8. loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 27 Feb 2001 08:21:02 GMT; just tried to apply the loop-6 patch to the XFS tree (which works fine with plain 2.4.2) i ran into the following: kgcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/tmp/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fno-strict-ali; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00870.html (9,059 bytes)
9. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:38:39 +0100; Yeah, the lurker, that's me :-) Anways, change the generic_make_request in loop to something like: generic_make_request(rw, bh, NULL, 0, 0, 0); return 0; and loop_make_request definition to: static i; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00871.html (9,483 bytes)
10. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 28 Feb 2001 10:01:05 GMT; i assume the kio_buf is kiobuf above? - then it compiles fine (only sidething is: loop.c: In function `loop_init': loop.c:956: warning: passing arg 2 of `blk_queue_make_request' from incompatible poi; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00882.html (10,720 bytes)
11. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:27:12 +0100; Yes of course, sorry. Maybe because the xfs tree doesn't quite agree on what make_request_fn should look like. Make the size_t unsigned int instead in loop and rd. -- Jens Axboe; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00888.html (8,528 bytes)
12. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: oe@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:50:21 +0100; My mistake, I was looking at the wrong function. There's no mixup in the xfs tree. -- Jens Axboe; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00889.html (8,370 bytes)
13. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: oe@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:56:58 +0100; I would provide a patch for rd too, but the tree still has the kgcc stupidity that prevents me from compiling. Yes I could fix it easily, but it annoys me heavily that such a change was made blindly; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00890.html (8,554 bytes)
14. Re: loop-6 and the XFS tree (score: 1): Author: oe@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:32:37 +0100; I would provide a patch for rd too, but the tree still has the kgcc stupidity that prevents me from compiling. Yes I could fix it easily, but it annoys me heavily that such a change was made blindly; /archives/xfs/2001-02/msg00891.html (9,100 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]