Hi Brian, Chris. Sorry my delay to reply, I was in a software conference this week, and barely accessed my e-mails. I can certainly re-do this patch to avoid the name change. I used a new name to follow the VFS convention, although I also agree we 'should' get rig of several versions and keep just newer updates to the same syscalls. So, I'll re-do this patch and send a V2. Cheers On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:35:56AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 05:04:57PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > The function rename seems unnecessary..? Meh, not a big deal to me > > either way. Otherwise, this one seems Ok. > > Yeah, we might as well keep the old name. As far as I'm concerned > I'd love to get rid of the two different IOPS in the VFS, too. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
