On Saturday 20 August 2005 20:45, David Howells wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Biased. Fs is a mixed case acronym, nuff said.
>
> But I'm still right:-)
Of course you are! We're only impugning your taste, not your logic ;-)
OK, the questions re your global consistency
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Biased. Fs is a mixed case acronym, nuff said.
But I'm still right:-)
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Biased. Fs is a mixed case acronym, nuff said.
But I'm still right:-)
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Saturday 20 August 2005 20:45, David Howells wrote:
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Biased. Fs is a mixed case acronym, nuff said.
But I'm still right:-)
Of course you are! We're only impugning your taste, not your logic ;-)
OK, the questions re your global consistency model
On Friday 19 August 2005 20:04, David Howells wrote:
> Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I disagree again. I don't think PageFsMisc() is particularly ugly or
> > > unreadable; and it makes it a touch more likely that someone reading
> > > code that uses it will notice that it's a
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree again. I don't think PageFsMisc() is particularly ugly or
> > unreadable; and it makes it a touch more likely that someone reading code
> > that uses it will notice that it's a miscellaneous flag specifically for
> > filesystem use (you can't
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree again. I don't think PageFsMisc() is particularly ugly or
unreadable; and it makes it a touch more likely that someone reading code
that uses it will notice that it's a miscellaneous flag specifically for
filesystem use (you can't rely on
On Friday 19 August 2005 20:04, David Howells wrote:
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree again. I don't think PageFsMisc() is particularly ugly or
unreadable; and it makes it a touch more likely that someone reading
code that uses it will notice that it's a miscellaneous
Hi!
> > PageMisc would look less ugly
>
> I disagree again. I don't think PageFsMisc() is particularly ugly or
> unreadable; and it makes it a touch more likely that someone reading code that
> uses it will notice that it's a miscellaneous flag specifically for filesystem
> use (you can't rely
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My patch has been around for quite a while, and no-one else has
> > complained, not even you before this point. Plus, you don't seem to be
> > complaining about PageSwapCache... nor even PageLocked.
>
> PageFsMisc really *is* ugly and hard to read.
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My patch has been around for quite a while, and no-one else has
complained, not even you before this point. Plus, you don't seem to be
complaining about PageSwapCache... nor even PageLocked.
PageFsMisc really *is* ugly and hard to read. PageLocked
Hi!
PageMisc would look less ugly
I disagree again. I don't think PageFsMisc() is particularly ugly or
unreadable; and it makes it a touch more likely that someone reading code that
uses it will notice that it's a miscellaneous flag specifically for filesystem
use (you can't rely on them
Hi!
> > You also achieved some sort of new low point in the abuse of StudlyCaps
> > there. Please, let's not get started on mixed case acronyms.
>
> My patch has been around for quite a while, and no-one else has complained,
> not even you before this point. Plus, you don't seem to be
Hi!
You also achieved some sort of new low point in the abuse of StudlyCaps
there. Please, let's not get started on mixed case acronyms.
My patch has been around for quite a while, and no-one else has complained,
not even you before this point. Plus, you don't seem to be complaining
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, David Howells wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm just requesting that you base your stuff on my patch that's already in
> -mm. The names in there are already in use, though not currently in the -mm
> patch (the patches that use it have been
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You also achieved some sort of new low point in the abuse of StudlyCaps
> there. Please, let's not get started on mixed case acronyms.
My patch has been around for quite a while, and no-one else has complained,
not even you before this point. Plus,
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know you want to ruthlessly trim out anything that isn't used, but please
> > be patient:-)
>
> Are you sure CacheFS is even the right way to do client-side caching?
It's just one way. See the attached document for how it works.
> What is wrong
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know you want to ruthlessly trim out anything that isn't used, but please
be patient:-)
Are you sure CacheFS is even the right way to do client-side caching?
It's just one way. See the attached document for how it works.
What is wrong with
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You also achieved some sort of new low point in the abuse of StudlyCaps
there. Please, let's not get started on mixed case acronyms.
My patch has been around for quite a while, and no-one else has complained,
not even you before this point. Plus, you
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, David Howells wrote:
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just requesting that you base your stuff on my patch that's already in
-mm. The names in there are already in use, though not currently in the -mm
patch (the patches that use it have been temporarily
On Thursday 11 August 2005 19:26, David Howells wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + SetPageMiscFS(page);
>
> Can you please retain the *PageFsMisc names I've been using in my stuff?
>
> In my opinion putting the "Fs" bit first gives a clearer indication that
> this is a bit
On Thursday 11 August 2005 19:46, David Howells wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since this was done only for CacheFS, and Andrew dropped CacheFS from
> > -mm he could drop this patch as well.
>
> I asked him not to. Somewhat at his instigation, I requested that he drop
> the
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since this was done only for CacheFS, and Andrew dropped CacheFS from
> -mm he could drop this patch as well.
I asked him not to. Somewhat at his instigation, I requested that he drop the
filesystem caching patches for the moment. I'm updating them and
Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel=112368417412580=2
>
> Oh. You are talking about CacheFS? That hasn't been declared "ready to
> merge" yet.
I can probably put out FS-Cache now, and the patches for kAFS and NFS to use
it. CacheFS is
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page flags
> bit 8,
Nor will you be able to until the NFS caching patches are released.
> to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from NFS, in fact I
> have misgivings
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This filesystem-specific flag needs to be prevented from escaping into other
> subsystems that might interact, such as VM. The current usage is mainly
> for directories, except for Reiser4, which uses it for journalling
> ..
> +
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This filesystem-specific flag needs to be prevented from escaping into other
subsystems that might interact, such as VM. The current usage is mainly
for directories, except for Reiser4, which uses it for journalling
..
+ SetPageMiscFS(page);
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page flags
bit 8,
Nor will you be able to until the NFS caching patches are released.
to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from NFS, in fact I
have misgivings about
Trond Myklebust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernelm=112368417412580w=2
Oh. You are talking about CacheFS? That hasn't been declared ready to
merge yet.
I can probably put out FS-Cache now, and the patches for kAFS and NFS to use
it. CacheFS is taking a
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this was done only for CacheFS, and Andrew dropped CacheFS from
-mm he could drop this patch as well.
I asked him not to. Somewhat at his instigation, I requested that he drop the
filesystem caching patches for the moment. I'm updating them and
On Thursday 11 August 2005 19:46, David Howells wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this was done only for CacheFS, and Andrew dropped CacheFS from
-mm he could drop this patch as well.
I asked him not to. Somewhat at his instigation, I requested that he drop
the filesystem
On Thursday 11 August 2005 19:26, David Howells wrote:
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ SetPageMiscFS(page);
Can you please retain the *PageFsMisc names I've been using in my stuff?
In my opinion putting the Fs bit first gives a clearer indication that
this is a bit exclusively
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:23:53AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page flags
> bit
> 8, to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from NFS, in fact
> I have misgivings about end_page_fs_misc which uses this flag but
to den 11.08.2005 Klokka 08:57 (+1000) skreiv Daniel Phillips:
> > What "NFS-related colliding use of page flags bit 8"?
>
> As explained to me:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel=112368417412580=2
Oh. You are talking about CacheFS? That hasn't been declared "ready to
merge" yet.
Hi Trond,
On Thursday 11 August 2005 08:34, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> to den 11.08.2005 Klokka 08:23 (+1000) skreiv Daniel Phillips:
> > Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page
> > flags bit 8, to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from
> > NFS, in
to den 11.08.2005 Klokka 08:23 (+1000) skreiv Daniel Phillips:
> Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page flags
> bit
> 8, to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from NFS, in fact
> I have misgivings about end_page_fs_misc which uses this flag but
Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page flags bit
8, to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from NFS, in fact
I have misgivings about end_page_fs_misc which uses this flag but has no
in-tree users to show how it is used and, hmm, isn't even _GPL.
This filesystem-specific flag needs to be prevented from escaping into other
subsystems that might interact, such as VM. The current usage is mainly
for directories, except for Reiser4, which uses it for journalling, and NFS,
which presses it into service in a network cache coherency role.
Also
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 17:48, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > --- 2.6.13-rc5-mm1.clean/include/linux/page-flags.h 2005-08-09
> > 18:23:31.0 -0400 +++
> > 2.6.13-rc5-mm1/include/linux/page-flags.h 2005-08-09 18:59:57.0
> > -0400 @@ -61,7
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> --- 2.6.13-rc5-mm1.clean/include/linux/page-flags.h 2005-08-09
> 18:23:31.0 -0400
> +++ 2.6.13-rc5-mm1/include/linux/page-flags.h 2005-08-09 18:59:57.0
> -0400
> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
> #define PG_active 6
> #define
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Daniel Phillips wrote:
--- 2.6.13-rc5-mm1.clean/include/linux/page-flags.h 2005-08-09
18:23:31.0 -0400
+++ 2.6.13-rc5-mm1/include/linux/page-flags.h 2005-08-09 18:59:57.0
-0400
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
#define PG_active 6
#define PG_slab
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 17:48, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Daniel Phillips wrote:
--- 2.6.13-rc5-mm1.clean/include/linux/page-flags.h 2005-08-09
18:23:31.0 -0400 +++
2.6.13-rc5-mm1/include/linux/page-flags.h 2005-08-09 18:59:57.0
-0400 @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
This filesystem-specific flag needs to be prevented from escaping into other
subsystems that might interact, such as VM. The current usage is mainly
for directories, except for Reiser4, which uses it for journalling, and NFS,
which presses it into service in a network cache coherency role.
Also
Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page flags bit
8, to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from NFS, in fact
I have misgivings about end_page_fs_misc which uses this flag but has no
in-tree users to show how it is used and, hmm, isn't even _GPL.
to den 11.08.2005 Klokka 08:23 (+1000) skreiv Daniel Phillips:
Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page flags
bit
8, to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from NFS, in fact
I have misgivings about end_page_fs_misc which uses this flag but has no
Hi Trond,
On Thursday 11 August 2005 08:34, Trond Myklebust wrote:
to den 11.08.2005 Klokka 08:23 (+1000) skreiv Daniel Phillips:
Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page
flags bit 8, to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from
NFS, in fact I
to den 11.08.2005 Klokka 08:57 (+1000) skreiv Daniel Phillips:
What NFS-related colliding use of page flags bit 8?
As explained to me:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernelm=112368417412580w=2
Oh. You are talking about CacheFS? That hasn't been declared ready to
merge yet.
That
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:23:53AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Note: I have not fully audited the NFS-related colliding use of page flags
bit
8, to verify that it really does not escape into VFS or MM from NFS, in fact
I have misgivings about end_page_fs_misc which uses this flag but has
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 07:54, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Suggestion for your next act:
> >
> > ...kill PG_checked please :) Or at least keep it from spreading.
>
> It already spread - ext3 is using it and I think reiser4. I thought I had
> a patch
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 07:54, Andrew Morton wrote:
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suggestion for your next act:
...kill PG_checked please :) Or at least keep it from spreading.
It already spread - ext3 is using it and I think reiser4. I thought I had
a patch to rename it
50 matches
Mail list logo
