On Sun, 27 August 2006 01:04:28 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Like lib/inflate.c (and this new code should arguably be in lib/).
>
> The problem is that if we clean this up, we've diverged very much from the
> upstream implementation. So taking in fixes and features from upstream
> becomes har
On Fri, 1 July 2005 14:58:39 -0500, David Masover wrote:
> Bryan Henderson wrote:
> [...]
> >What you'd really like is to fsync a multi-file unit of work (transaction)
> >-- and not just among open files. You'd like to open, write, and close
> >1000 files in a single transaction and then commit
On Thu, 30 June 2005 13:32:23 -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:44:37PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
>
> > Or do you rather mean that a single sync() should block until all data
> > currently present is hardened?
>
> Logically sync() should return only after all dirty buffers
On Thu, 30 June 2005 11:46:27 -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:30:20PM -0400, Bryan Henderson wrote:
>
> > In others, it implements "everything that was buffered when sync()
> > started is hardened before the next sync() returns,"
>
> That is what happens now. I'm not su
On Mon, 27 June 2005 15:27:50 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It won't work for me because it'll bloat the kernel .text
> > considerable. There is a reason why BUG is implemented
> > like it is. Compare it.
>
> The assertion codes bloat the kernel all the
On Mon, 27 June 2005 10:49:19 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
>
> #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG_ON
> -#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (unlikely((condition)!=0)) BUG(); }
> while(0)
> +#define BUG_ON(condition) do { \
> + if (unlikely((condition) != 0)) { \
> + printk("kernel BUG '%s' at
