On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:45:45PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
--- a/utils.h
+++ b/utils.h
@@ -71,13 +71,17 @@ int check_mounted_where(int fd, const char *file, char
*where, int size,
int btrfs_device_already_in_root(struct btrfs_root *root, int fd,
int
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 06:20:49PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:55:01AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
David, let me know if you want me to change anything or resend so you
don't have to pull this out of a reply in a thread.
Thanks, I'm now aware of the patch in the
Great! Thanks Zach for your quick patch. it works.
Anand
On 05/09/2014 03:45, Zach Brown wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 07:43:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
+ static __thread char _str[24];
This patch is causing segmentation fault as it reached maximum stack
depth on
Great! Thanks Zach for your quick patch. it works.
Cool.
From 3d132362f4c87b065b63cb38726a030db2277919 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zach Brown z...@zabbo.net
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:32:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: use pretty printing macros
David, let me know if you want me
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:55:01AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
David, let me know if you want me to change anything or resend so you
don't have to pull this out of a reply in a thread.
Thanks, I'm now aware of the patch in the thread.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
+ static __thread char _str[24];
This patch is causing segmentation fault as it reached maximum stack
depth on the sparc machine. Just earlier method of malloc is better ?
unless we want to change the stack depth. Any comments ?
Thanks, Anand
On 07/10/2013 10:30 PM, David
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 07:43:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
+ static __thread char _str[24];
This patch is causing segmentation fault as it reached maximum stack
depth on the sparc machine.
Sigh. I guess it was inevitable that this would fail somewhere :).
Just earlier
From: Zach Brown z...@redhat.com
From: Zach Brown z...@redhat.com
We don't need callers to manage string storage for each pretty_sizes()
call. We can use a macro to have per-thread and per-call static storage
so that pretty_sizes() can be used as many times as needed in printf()
arguments
Hello David,
From: Zach Brown z...@redhat.com
duplicate information.
From: Zach Brown z...@redhat.com
We don't need callers to manage string storage for each pretty_sizes()
call. We can use a macro to have per-thread and per-call static storage
so that pretty_sizes() can be used as
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:31:17PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello David,
From: Zach Brown z...@redhat.com
duplicate information.
git-send-email tricked me, the line is not present in thre tree
From: Zach Brown z...@redhat.com
We don't need callers to manage string storage for
Sorry to be a pain in the arse at this late stage of the patch, but
I've only just noticed.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:30:15PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
static char *size_strs[] = { , KB, MB, GB, TB,
- PB, EB, ZB, YB};
-char *pretty_sizes(u64 size)
+
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:16:23PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
Sorry to be a pain in the arse at this late stage of the patch, but
I've only just noticed.
No worries, good to have this one fixed.
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a
12 matches
Mail list logo
