> > I know James is working on cleaning up LNet, but I don't know if he has
> > anything this would be conflicting at this moment or not.
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I wonder if you are generating them automatically?
> > Because it would be great if it also fixes the alignment issues
>
>
> > I know James is working on cleaning up LNet, but I don't know if he has
> > anything this would be conflicting at this moment or not.
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I wonder if you are generating them automatically?
> > Because it would be great if it also fixes the alignment issues
>
>
> > I know James is working on cleaning up LNet, but I don't know if he has
> > anything this would be conflicting at this moment or not.
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I wonder if you are generating them automatically?
> > Because it would be great if it also fixes the alignment issues
>
>
> > I know James is working on cleaning up LNet, but I don't know if he has
> > anything this would be conflicting at this moment or not.
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I wonder if you are generating them automatically?
> > Because it would be great if it also fixes the alignment issues
>
>
> > I know James is working on cleaning up LNet, but I don't know if he has
> > anything this would be conflicting at this moment or not.
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I wonder if you are generating them automatically?
> > Because it would be great if it also fixes the alignment issues
>
>
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 19:14 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 14:23 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> > > On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > Question about removing lustre typedefs.
> > > >
> > > > Various bits of
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 14:23 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > Question about removing lustre typedefs.
> >
> > Various bits of lustre code use a mix of struct foo and foo_t.
> >
> > When would be an appropriate time to submit patches similar to
On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 14:23 +, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>
>>> Question about removing lustre typedefs.
>>>
>>> Various bits of lustre code use a mix of struct foo and foo_t.
>>>
>>> When would
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 15:58 +, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> > When would be an appropriate time to submit patches similar to
> > below that individually remove various typedefs from lustre code?
> >
> > These are pretty trivial to produce and verify so there's no
> > particular hurry to do them
>Question about removing lustre typedefs.
>
>Various bits of lustre code use a mix of struct foo and foo_t.
>
>When would be an appropriate time to submit patches similar to
>below that individually remove various typedefs from lustre code?
>
>These are pretty trivial to produce and verify so
On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> Question about removing lustre typedefs.
>
> Various bits of lustre code use a mix of struct foo and foo_t.
>
> When would be an appropriate time to submit patches similar to
> below that individually remove various typedefs from lustre code?
I
Question about removing lustre typedefs.
Various bits of lustre code use a mix of struct foo and foo_t.
When would be an appropriate time to submit patches similar to
below that individually remove various typedefs from lustre code?
These are pretty trivial to produce and verify so there's no
12 matches
Mail list logo
