On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 10:25 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 10:55 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Mingming Cao wrote:
> >
> > > printk could be removed...so as long as it builds fine. I had looked at
> > > the history yesterday and find this fix
> > > http://lists.openwall.net/l
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 10:55 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Mingming Cao wrote:
>
> > printk could be removed...so as long as it builds fine. I had looked at
> > the history yesterday and find this fix
> > http://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2007/10/10/2
> > so I was under impression that the ifdefs
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 08:39 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 09:45 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 20:35 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > it'll build:
> > >
> > > static inline struct proc_dir_entry *proc_mkdir(const char *name,
> > > struct proc_d
Mingming Cao wrote:
> printk could be removed...so as long as it builds fine. I had looked at
> the history yesterday and find this fix
> http://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2007/10/10/2
> so I was under impression that the ifdefs was added to fix compile
> issue. I did not look more closely. May
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 09:45 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 20:35 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Mingming Cao wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 19:06 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > >> Mingming Cao wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Do you intend to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, or it's
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 20:35 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Mingming Cao wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 19:06 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Mingming Cao wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do you intend to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, or it's a accident? I
> >>> think we need keep that to allow ext4 build wit
Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 19:06 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Mingming Cao wrote:
>>
>>> Do you intend to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, or it's a accident? I
>>> think we need keep that to allow ext4 build without procfs configured.
>>>
>>> Other than this, the patch looks fin
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 19:06 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Mingming Cao wrote:
>
> > Do you intend to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, or it's a accident? I
> > think we need keep that to allow ext4 build without procfs configured.
> >
> > Other than this, the patch looks fine to me.:)
>
> oh, it
Mingming Cao wrote:
> Do you intend to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, or it's a accident? I
> think we need keep that to allow ext4 build without procfs configured.
>
> Other than this, the patch looks fine to me.:)
oh, it kind of snuck in. It actually should still build, as
remove_proc_entr
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 11:05 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> struct ext4_allocation_context is rather large, and this bloats
> the stack of many functions which use it. Allocating it from
> a named slab cache will alleviate this.
>
> For example, with this change (on top of the noinline patch sent ea
struct ext4_allocation_context is rather large, and this bloats
the stack of many functions which use it. Allocating it from
a named slab cache will alleviate this.
For example, with this change (on top of the noinline patch sent earlier):
-ext4_mb_new_blocks 200
+ext4_mb_new_blocks
11 matches
Mail list logo
