On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:34:28AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > XXX: might want a bigger name, and possible a better implementation > > > that doesn't require two lookups in the radix tree. > > > > And these need to be looked into. I can take a stab at it, but I need > > to get a few other things off my plate first. > > Yeah. It works well enough for unsharing blocks, if inefficiently. > > Not sure what "a bigger name" means, though. I tried feeding the > function prototype through figlet but gcc didn't like that. ;) That should have been "better", sorry. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
