On Thu, 1 May 2008, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > fs/ext3/acl.c | 4 +- > fs/ext3/balloc.c | 5 +- > fs/ext3/bitmap.c | 2 +- > fs/ext3/dir.c | 3 +- > fs/ext3/ext3.h | 897 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > fs/ext3/ext3_i.h | 147 ++++++++ > fs/ext3/ext3_jbd.c | 7 +- > fs/ext3/ext3_jbd.h | 225 +++++++++++ > fs/ext3/ext3_sb.h | 86 +++++ > fs/ext3/file.c | 5 +- > fs/ext3/fsync.c | 5 +- > fs/ext3/hash.c | 3 +- > fs/ext3/ialloc.c | 5 +- > fs/ext3/inode.c | 4 +- > fs/ext3/ioctl.c | 5 +- > fs/ext3/namei.c | 5 +- > fs/ext3/resize.c | 6 +- > fs/ext3/super.c | 5 +- > fs/ext3/symlink.c | 3 +- > fs/ext3/xattr.c | 4 +- > fs/ext3/xattr_security.c | 4 +- > fs/ext3/xattr_trusted.c | 4 +- > fs/ext3/xattr_user.c | 5 +- > include/linux/ext3_fs.h | 896 ------------------------------------------- > include/linux/ext3_fs_i.h | 147 -------- > include/linux/ext3_fs_sb.h | 86 ----- > include/linux/ext3_jbd.h | 226 ----------- I'd suggest not sending out patches like this. If the patch is largely a rename one, and sent out for review, just use "git diff -M -p --stat --summary", because it's going to be a *lot* more reviewable that way. Yeah, it means that people need git to apply it, but by now we can probably take that for granted - and more importantly, even if they don't have git installed: when you send out of RFC, aren't you looking for commentary more than people to apply and test it? And then the patch saying that it's a rename (with perhaps changes to the guard #ifdef thing) would be a lot more clear. Nobody is going to read a patch that is 2800 lines of mostly create/delete with presumably almost no actual changes? Linus -- 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
