On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:54:25 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Shaun Zinck wrote: > > > Convert code and definitions that look similar to DIV_ROUND_UP > > (defined in kernel.h), to use DIV_ROUND_UP instead of redefining or > > recoding it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shaun Zinck <shaun.zinck@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/block_dev.c | 2 +- > > fs/direct-io.c | 7 +++---- > > fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.h | 4 ++-- > > fs/jfs/resize.c | 2 +- > > fs/nfs/nfs4renewd.c | 4 ++-- > > fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c | 2 +- > > fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmcommon.h | 2 +- > > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_linux.h | 1 - > > fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c | 4 ++-- > > fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c | 4 ++-- > > fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c | 4 ++-- > > fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 4 ++-- > > 12 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > you might have been better off doing this in chunks and CC'ing the > appropriate subsystem maintainers on each chunk. there's a better > chance of stuff getting accepted that way. I only did the fs/* stuff. There are many more occurrences, but apparently even fs/* is not fine-grained enough. I can break them up further. I'm new to this so I do appreciate the advice. I would break it up into the following separate patches: 1) fs/block_dev.c 2) fs/direct_io.c 3) fs/jfs/* 4) fs/nfs/* 5) fs/ocfs2/* 6) fs/xfs/* I would send these as separate patches instead of as a series, since they are independent from each other. How's that sound? -Shaun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
