In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Hewlett writes: > On Tuesday 20 November 2007 04:11:01 Erez Zadok wrote:
> Erez > > There seems to be some confusion over this patch and it occurs to me that it > would be better if I had submitted a proper diff that can be fed to the patch > command. Please advise how you would like this done. > > Paul I noticed that the RT patch had changed the name of the field from 'nrpages' to '__nrpages'. That's going to make it harder for you to come up with a single unionfs patch which would work for all 3 cases: 1. when RT patches are not applied 2. when RT patches are applied by CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is 'n' 3. when RT patches are applied by CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is 'y' I suggest that the RT patches not rename the field name to __nrpages, if possible. Either way, I'll wait to get a patch from you -- hopefully something small and clean. Thanks, Erez. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
