- 1. [PATCH 00/15] xfs: minimize DMAPI footprint (score: 1)
- Author: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:04:13 -0500
- Dmapi support was never merged upstream, but we still have a lot of hooks bloating XFS for it, all over the fast pathes of the filesystem. This patch drops over 700 lines of dmapi overhead. If we'll
- /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00315.html (9,644 bytes)
- 2. Re: [PATCH 00/15] xfs: minimize DMAPI footprint (score: 1)
- Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:57:34 -0400
- So why don't you bother to get HSM support upstream properly, or at least maintain it somewhere where you can get at it? What sourcxe tree do those important customers use it? While this is a lot be
- /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00330.html (9,041 bytes)
- 3. Re: [PATCH 00/15] xfs: minimize DMAPI footprint (score: 1)
- Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:20:43 +1000
- My question about the DMAPI hooks also still stands - if we leave the hooks in mainline, how are we supposed to test that they are still placed correctly for the out-of-tree patches to function corre
- /archives/xfs/2010-06/msg00340.html (10,675 bytes)
- 4. Re: [PATCH 00/15] xfs: minimize DMAPI footprint (score: 1)
- Author: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:05:47 -0500
- (Responding to Dave, since it basically included all of Christoph's response as well.) Quick summary: we'll go ahead with the suggestion to maintain the DMAPI code (all of it) in a separate branch. I
- /archives/xfs/2010-07/msg00013.html (12,874 bytes)
- 5. Re: [PATCH 00/15] xfs: minimize DMAPI footprint (score: 1)
- Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:15:59 -0400
- Thanks. I think I still have a few old patches for dmapi code from a few years ago that I can repost to simplify that code.
- /archives/xfs/2010-07/msg00014.html (8,776 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu