On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/15/17 8:59 AM, Jan Tulak wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> my RFC didn't got much of attention, so I'm sending it as a merge request. >> Hopefully, this will get more eyes on it. ;-) I fixed the few small issues Bill >> noticed (Thanks, Bill!) and xfstests runs ok. There is one case where test >> xfs/191-input-validation was accepting a behaviour forbidden in man page, so >> I'm sending also a xfstests patch: >> >> Specifically, a standalone "-l size=4096b" should fail, because: >> To specify any options on the command line in units of filesys‐ >> tem blocks, this option must be specified first so that the >> filesystem block size is applied consistently to all options. >> >> So without the xfstest patch, expect this one test to fail. >> >> The following text is copy&paste from RFC. I only removed/edited one question >> I had at the time and was solved in the RFC thread. After that is an addendum >> with regards to Luis' config file support. > > Hi Jan - > > I'm finally trying to take some time and give this serious review. > > At a top level, though, please fix up coding style issues which are > introduced throughout the series. > > As Dave has said before, checkpatch.pl in the kernel tree isn't perfect, > and we need to apply understanding and reason to its results, but it's > a place to start looking - for a sampling, > > [snip] > > So use your good judgement, but please fix as many of these as you can; > it's important to have a consistent coding style throughout the xfsprogs > codebase. > OK, thanks. I will run it and see what I can do. And thanks for looking on this. :-) Cheers, Jan -- Jan Tulak jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx / jan@xxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
