Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+don\'t\s+special\-case\s+32MB\s+machines\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+don\'t\s+special\-case\s+32MB\s+machines\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] don't special-case 32MB machines (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:31:39 -0600; This one may be a bit silly, but: All the special cases for 32MB machines probably aren't so useful anymore... Or maybe this points to the need to bump up the scaling points & sizes a bit? Also remov; /archives/xfs/2007-02/msg00061.html (12,219 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] don't special-case 32MB machines (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:27:12 +0000; Sounds good. Any chance you could kill off xfs_physmem completely?; /archives/xfs/2007-02/msg00063.html (7,826 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] don't special-case 32MB machines (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:38:57 -0600; Hm, why out of curiosity? Because you think xfs should never be looking at system memory, or because you don't like the name, or ...? -Eric; /archives/xfs/2007-02/msg00065.html (8,273 bytes)
4. [PATCH] don't special-case 32MB machines (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:31:39 -0600; t; /archives/xfs/2007-02/msg00197.html (12,219 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] don't special-case 32MB machines (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:27:12 +0000; n; /archives/xfs/2007-02/msg00199.html (7,826 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] don't special-case 32MB machines (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:38:57 -0600; /archives/xfs/2007-02/msg00201.html (8,273 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]