Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+0\/10\]\s+Perag\s+lookup\s+rework\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+0\/10\]\s+Perag\s+lookup\s+rework\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 0/10] Perag lookup rework (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:47:39 +1100; This is the previous set of patches all put together in the one series for the current xfs-dev tree. Patch 10 is a new patch - it embeds the busy extent list into the perag structure rather than leav; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00146.html (7,833 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 0/10] Perag lookup rework (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:33:54 -0500; All patches, including the new last one look good to me, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00174.html (9,127 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 0/10] Perag lookup rework (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:34:54 -0500; Oh, btw subjects are still a mixup between XFS: and xfs:; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00175.html (8,314 bytes)
4. RE: [PATCH 0/10] Perag lookup rework (score: 1): Author: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:42:12 -0600; All 10 patches look good. I am adding the following descriptions to these patches which lacked them: http://patchwork.xfs.org/patch/429/ [03/10] XFS: Convert filestreams code to use per-ag get/put ro; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00274.html (9,807 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 0/10] Perag lookup rework (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:37:25 +1100; I'd consier that redundant and therefore unnecssary. I don't put a descriptio in if the subject line describes the patch sufficiently. It seems to be a pretty common practise, actually. That describe; /archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00284.html (10,419 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]