On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:08:21PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:29:51 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Convert the remaining couple of random shrinkers in the tree to the > > new API. > > Gee we have a lot of shrinkers. And a large number of them are busted in some way, too :/ > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c > > @@ -4213,13 +4213,14 @@ restart: > > spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock); > > } > > > > -static int mmu_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc) > > +static long > > +mmu_shrink_scan( > > + struct shrinker *shrink, > > + struct shrink_control *sc) > > > > ... > > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/auth.c > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth.c > > -static int > > -rpcauth_cache_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc) > > +static long > > +rpcauth_cache_shrink_scan( > > + struct shrinker *shrink, > > + struct shrink_control *sc) > > + > > It is pretty poor form to switch other people's code into this very > non-standard XFSish coding style. The maintainers are just going to > have to go wtf and switch it back one day. My bad. That's left over from when I was originally developing the the patch set passed a couple more parameters to the shrinkers pushing every single declaration to well over the line length limits. I never converted them back as I removed the extra parameters, because it's far easier to just have delete a line that delete a variable and reformat the entire function declaration.... > Really, it would be best if you were to go through the entire patchset > and undo all this. Sure, that can be done. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
