On 2017/10/27 19:39, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/27 19:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2017/10/27 18:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/26 22:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2017/10/26 19:52, Jaegeuk Kim
On 2017/10/27 19:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/10/27 18:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2017/10/26 22:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/10/26 19:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/27 18:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2017/10/26 22:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/26 19:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>
> >> On 2017/
On 2017/10/27 18:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/10/26 22:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2017/10/26 19:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> On 2017/10/26 18:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> Hi
On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/26 22:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2017/10/26 19:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 2017/10/26 18:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Chao,
> >
> > On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim
On 2017/10/26 22:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/10/26 19:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2017/10/26 18:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>
On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/26 19:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>
> >> On 2017/10/26 18:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> Hi Chao,
> >>>
> >>> On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> > Hi Jaegeuk,
> >
> > On 2017/10/2
On 2017/10/26 19:52, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> On 2017/10/26 18:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 2017/10/26 16:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> Hi Chao,
>
On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 2017/10/26 18:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Chao,
> >
> > On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>>
> >>> On 2017/10/26 16:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> It seems this is a critical proble
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2017/10/26 18:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>>
>>> On 2017/10/26 16:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
Hi Chao,
It seems this is a critical problem, so let me integrate this patch with
your
>
On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Chao,
> >
> > On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > Hi Jaegeuk,
> > > >
> > > > On 2017/10/26 16:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > Hi Chao,
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems this is a critical problem, so
On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > Hi Jaegeuk,
> > >
> > > On 2017/10/26 16:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi Chao,
> > > >
> > > > It seems this is a critical problem, so let me integrate this patch
> > > > with your
> >
Hi Chao,
On 10/26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> > Hi Jaegeuk,
> >
> > On 2017/10/26 16:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Chao,
> > >
> > > It seems this is a critical problem, so let me integrate this patch with
> > > your
> > > initial patch "f2fs: support flexible inline xatt
On 10/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 2017/10/26 16:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Chao,
> >
> > It seems this is a critical problem, so let me integrate this patch with
> > your
> > initial patch "f2fs: support flexible inline xattr size".
> > Let me know, if you have any other concern.
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2017/10/26 16:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> It seems this is a critical problem, so let me integrate this patch with your
> initial patch "f2fs: support flexible inline xattr size".
> Let me know, if you have any other concern.
Better. ;)
Please add commit message of this
Hi Chao,
It seems this is a critical problem, so let me integrate this patch with your
initial patch "f2fs: support flexible inline xattr size".
Let me know, if you have any other concern.
Thanks,
On 10/25, Chao Yu wrote:
> Previously, in inode layout, we will always reserve 200 bytes for inline
Previously, in inode layout, we will always reserve 200 bytes for inline
xattr space no matter the inode enables inline xattr feature or not, due
to this reason, max inline size of inode is fixed, but now, if inline
xattr is not enabled, max inline size of inode will be enlarged by 200
bytes, for r
17 matches
Mail list logo
