On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Qinghuang Feng qhfeng.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
merge list_for_each and list_entry to list_for_each_entry.
Please ignore this patch, I will resend a patch to cleanup all the
similar codes in btrfs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
I'll kick off some runs of my three benchmarks on ext3 for comparison.
If there are things less synthetic people would like to see, please let
me know.
What about a web-server test? Number of hits per second it can do?
Folkert van Heusden
--
MultiTail er et flexible tool for å kontrolere
I'll kick off some runs of my three benchmarks on ext3 for comparison.
If there are things less synthetic people would like to see, please let
me know.
What about a web-server test? Number of hits per second it can do?
Quick hack: http://vanheusden.com/tortureweb/tortureweb-0.1.tgz
To
So I don't dispute at all that mutex with spinning performs better than
a mutex, but I _do_ claim that it has some potentially huge downsides
compared to a real spinlock. It may perform as well as a spinlock in the
nice common case, but then when you hit the non-common case you see the
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 15:25 +0800, Qinghuang Feng wrote:
merge list_for_each and list_entry to list_for_each_entry.
Thanks, I've queued this up.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 15:25 +0800, Qinghuang Feng wrote:
merge list_for_each and list_entry to list_for_each_entry.
Thanks, I've queued this up.
Good, but
Now I have made a new patch for cleanupping all the
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 23:20 +0800, sniper wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 15:25 +0800, Qinghuang Feng wrote:
merge list_for_each and list_entry to list_for_each_entry.
Thanks, I've queued this up.
Good, but
Merge list_for_each* and list_entry to list_for_each_entry*
Signed-off-by: Qinghuang Feng qhfeng.ker...@gmail.com
---
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
index 81a3138..aedfcec 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -1136,7 +1136,6 @@ static int
Hello everyone,
I had said that a revision of the ioctl API wouldn't be required and
that I'd maintain compatibility even for my simple ioctl calls now.
But, Ryusuke Konishi noticed that I didn't align the ioctl argument
properly and that it was actually different sizes on 32 bit and 64 bit
Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 10:16 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
btw., i think spin-mutexes have a design advantage here: in a lot of code
areas it's quite difficult to use spinlocks - cannot allocate memory,
cannot call any code that can
Hi,
Without this patch btrfs doesn't compile on my system. I have Linux 2.6.27.8
on x86_64 compiled with gcc 4.1.2.
This is mostly the old compat.h with one typedef removed (typedef unsigned
__bitwise__ fmode_t;) as it was already defined on my system.
Happy hacking :)
Brcha
--
Filip Brčić
If btrfsck is not able to open a device, it segfaults. This fixes it and
prints an error message too.
---
btrfsck.c |3 +++
disk-io.c |1 +
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/btrfsck.c b/btrfsck.c
index 4a41e6d..cde0e68 100644
--- a/btrfsck.c
+++ b/btrfsck.c
@@
12 matches
Mail list logo
