On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 21:45 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > Mingming Cao wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 17:35 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >> I have updated the patch queue at > >> > >> http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/patch-series/ > >> > >> http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/patch-series/ext4-patch-queue.tar > >> > >> Changes: > >> a) Add large-file-blocktype.patch large-file.patch patch. > > > > Could you send them out separately? I noticed that your queue is not > > based on the last ext4 patch queue. You modified mballoc-core.patch > > directly with large file block type changes...but your updated > > mballoc-core.patch doesn't have the latest proc fs fix from Ted. > > > > It has the changes. http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/patch-series/mballoc-core.patch > I searched for PROC_FS . I did a git pull on patch queue before updating the patches. > > > > > > I would appreciate if you separete the largeblocktype changes for > > mballoc out of the core mballoc changes, as that patch is getting really > > big already. > > > >> b) Add the stable-boundary-patch with dummy change > >> c) Add stable-boundary-undo.patch which undo the above dummy change. > > > > The stable-boundary patch is being removed from ext4 patch queue,as some > > tools expect a meaning code diff to apply any patch. > > > > That is why i added a dummy change which is reverted by the later patch. > I see your intention is to bring back the boundary patch which doesn't upset the tools but also doesn't have any code impact to the tree. Okay, updated ext4-patch-queue with your updates. > > -aneeshh- > > -aneesh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
