Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+define\s+xfs_ino

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+define\s+xfs_ino_t\s+as\s+unsigned\s+long\s+long\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. he reordering bug (was Re: BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem?) (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:31:29 -0500; nd sorry for my very bad english ... For an Adsl Box, I want to partitionning and format my external hard disk drive under XFS .What a good idea , isn't it ? ;o) I get; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00070.html (7,628 bytes)
2. eordering bug (was Re: BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem?) (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:14:14 +1100; 10.1 are different to 2.8.1. The newer version enables features that are only availble in more recent kernels (since about 2.6.19, IIRC), so it would seem that your AD; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00081.html (7,985 bytes)
3. 0.1 with 2.8.1 ? (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:22:14 -0500; ges in dmesg output ! Only the mkfs output messages in the command line ... "For what it's worth, you can just turn off the newer features when you mkfs with the newer; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00089.html (7,759 bytes)
4. pagecache reordering bug (was Re: BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem?) (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:31:29 -0500; r. It doesn't need that because the last level pointers in the radix tree are not necessarily under RCU, but whatever synchronisation the; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00344.html (7,628 bytes)
5. ur site (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:14:14 +1100; yself a bit puzzled as to why rcu_dereference() isn't the right tool for Nick's job. Then again, I don't claim to fully understand what; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00355.html (7,985 bytes)
6. kless pagecache reordering bug (was Re: BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem?) (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:22:14 -0500; el version of my Adsl Box . I search in documentation and I don't find any item about a parameter which take a compatibility with old xf; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00363.html (7,759 bytes)
7. [PATCH] define xfs_ino_t as unsigned long long (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:31:29 -0500; That way we can avoid ugly casts when printining it (like the ones that show up on powerpc with Linus' current tree). Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_types.h == --; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00720.html (7,628 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] define xfs_ino_t as unsigned long long (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:14:14 +1100; Is that because ppc uses int-l64.h instead of int-64ll.h and so __64 gets defined to an unsigned long on that platform? Whatever the reason, it looks fine to me. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxx; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00731.html (8,045 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] define xfs_ino_t as unsigned long long (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:22:14 -0500; Yes.; /archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00739.html (7,903 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]