On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:33:28 -0400, Nick Krause said: > Other then the TODO list, which we can discuss here, is there any > other parts of this patch that need to > be rewritten, it's merged as of now If this total turd of a patch was merged by an upstream maintainer, said maintainer needs to be taken out back and shot. And quite frankly, we don't care what you've merged into a local tree. > is how you want this cleaned up. Take it out back and shoot it. > From: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:09:09 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] btrfs: ioctl to clear unused space Nick, you were *told* to quit trying to evade banishments by changing names. If this is actually from a Suse developer, they are perfectly able to do their own work and upstream it. If this is a patch from 2012 and *still* not upstreamed, there's probably good reasons for it. > --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > @@ -3580,7 +3580,7 @@ again: > if (btrfs_test_opt(root, DISCARD)) > ret = btrfs_error_discard_extent(root, start, > end + 1 - start, > - NULL); > + NULL, 1); I don't know *what* you did to your git tree, but this is *not* how kernel code is formatted. People who submit code that's *THIS* poorly formatted even after they've been warned before are *not* welcome in the kernel community. I'm sorry Nick, but you've worn out pretty much all of whatever little welcome you had left.
Attachment:
pgppGGmhMqKv9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
