On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:07 -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:27 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:57:32AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > > Christoph, are you suggesting that this one hunk just > > > be excluded from the series? Or the entire patch? > > > > There's not much more in this patch, so I would suggest dropping it > > entirely. > > > > OK. I think the later patches may need a little massage > but I will be happy to work through that. > > Chandra, here is how I plan to proceed with your series: > - Change that (void *) to a (char *) in patch [8/12] > - Drop patch [2/12] from the series, and adjust all > of its successors in the series accordingly. > - Run the result through some test cycles > - Commit it and publish it on oss.sgi.com > > I will not commit the above until I get your OK > on it, so please let me know if you have any > objection, or affirm that you have none by > responding to this message. I am fine with your direction. chandra > > Separately, out of all this came a few other > suggestions, which would be great for you to > handle (or reject) if you're open to it: > - Get rid of the definition and use of xfs_buf_target_name(), > by verifying that comparable information is already provided > everywhere it's used. > - Eliminate all references to __psint_t and __psunsigned_t > in the XFS code, using uintptr_t in place where it > is absolutely necessary. > - Look into having xfs_qm_dqalloc() return ENOMEM when > it is unable to allocate a buffer, and fix all the > callers up the chain so they handle such a situation > appropriately. Right now such errors get reset. > > Thanks. > > -Alex > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
