On Wed 04-01-17 15:21:28, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 16:43 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 20-12-16 10:55:41, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > >
> > > For some odd reason, it forces a byte-by-byte copy of each field. A
> > > plain old swap() on most of these fields would be more efficient.
On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 16:43 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 20-12-16 10:55:41, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > For some odd reason, it forces a byte-by-byte copy of each field. A
> > plain old swap() on most of these fields would be more efficient. We
> > do need to retain one memswap however as that f
On Tue 20-12-16 10:55:41, Jeff Layton wrote:
> For some odd reason, it forces a byte-by-byte copy of each field. A
> plain old swap() on most of these fields would be more efficient. We
> do need to retain one memswap however as that field is an array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton
Looks good t
For some odd reason, it forces a byte-by-byte copy of each field. A
plain old swap() on most of these fields would be more efficient. We
do need to retain one memswap however as that field is an array.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton
---
fs/ext4/ioctl.c | 18 --
1 file changed, 8 inse
4 matches
Mail list logo
