On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:29 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:49 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
> > > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > +static inline __le32
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:49 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
> > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +static inline __le32 ext4_encode_extra_time(struct timespec *time)
> > > +{
> > > +
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:49 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static inline __le32 ext4_encode_extra_time(struct timespec *time)
+{
+ return
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:29 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:49 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static inline __le32
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
>
> I don't know what the "old nanosecond patches" are. A link to a suitable
> changlog for those
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
I don't know what the old nanosecond patches are. A link to a suitable
changlog for those patches would
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 12:35 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 09:59 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >
> > Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
> > >> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 09:59 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
> >> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
> >>
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 09:59 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
I don't know what the
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 12:35 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 09:59 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is a
Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
I don't know what the "old nanosecond patches" are. A link to a suitable
changlog
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
>
> I don't know what the "old nanosecond patches" are. A link to a suitable
> changlog for those
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
I don't know what the old nanosecond patches are. A link to a suitable
changlog for those patches would
Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
I don't know what the old nanosecond patches are. A link to a suitable
changlog for
On Jul 10, 2007 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +#define EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(ext4_inode, einode, field) \
> > + ((offsetof(typeof(*ext4_inode), field) +\
> > + sizeof((ext4_inode)->field)) \
> > + <= (EXT4_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE + \
> > +
On Jul 10, 2007 22:00 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
> > Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
> >
> > I don't know what the "old
On Jul 10, 2007 22:00 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
I don't know what the old nanosecond patches
On Jul 10, 2007 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
+#define EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(ext4_inode, einode, field) \
+ ((offsetof(typeof(*ext4_inode), field) +\
+ sizeof((ext4_inode)-field)) \
+ = (EXT4_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE + \
+
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
> Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
>
> I don't know what the "old nanosecond patches" are. A link to a suitable
> changlog for those
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
I don't know what the "old nanosecond patches" are. A link to a suitable
changlog for those patches would do in a pinch. Preferable would be to
write a proper
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400
Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
I don't know what the old nanosecond patches are. A link to a suitable
changlog for those patches would
On Jul 04, 2007 12:06 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Mingming Cao wrote:
> >On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> >>On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
> >>>+
> >>>+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode) \
> >>>+do {
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
+
+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode,
raw_inode) \
+do { \
+
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
+
+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode) \
+do { \
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > +
> > +#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode)
> >\
> > +do {
> >
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
+
+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode)
\
+do {
\
+
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
+
+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode) \
+do { \
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
+
+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode,
raw_inode) \
+do { \
+
On Jul 04, 2007 12:06 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 15:58 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
+
+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode) \
+do {
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
> +
> +#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode)
>\
> +do {\
> + (inode)->xtime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu((raw_inode)->xtime);
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
> +
> +#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode)
>\
> +do {\
> + (inode)->xtime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu((raw_inode)->xtime);
Mingming Cao wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
It includes some cleanups and addition of a creation timestamp. The
EXT3_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_EXTRA_ISIZE flag has also been added along with
s
Should be EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_EXTRA_ISIZE
-aneesh
-
To unsubscribe from
Mingming Cao wrote:
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
It includes some cleanups and addition of a creation timestamp. The
EXT3_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_EXTRA_ISIZE flag has also been added along with
s
Should be EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_EXTRA_ISIZE
-aneesh
-
To unsubscribe from
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
+
+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode)
\
+do {\
+ (inode)-xtime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu((raw_inode)-xtime);
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 03:36 -0400, Mingming Cao wrote:
+
+#define EXT4_INODE_GET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode)
\
+do {\
+ (inode)-xtime.tv_sec = le32_to_cpu((raw_inode)-xtime);
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
It includes some cleanups and addition of a creation timestamp. The
EXT3_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_EXTRA_ISIZE flag has also been added along with
s_{min, want}_extra_isize fields in struct ext3_super_block.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL
This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches.
It includes some cleanups and addition of a creation timestamp. The
EXT3_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_EXTRA_ISIZE flag has also been added along with
s_{min, want}_extra_isize fields in struct ext3_super_block.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger [EMAIL
37 matches
Mail list logo