Re: [PATCH 01/14] GFS: headers

2005-09-01 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 1 September 2005 22:59:48 +0800, David Teigland wrote: > > We offered to removed this when I explained it before. It sounds like it > would give you some comfort so I'll just go ahead and do it barring any > pleas otherwise. Please do. Just have one test machine with an endianness diffe

Re: [PATCH 01/14] GFS: headers

2005-09-01 Thread David Teigland
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:19:34PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > +/* Endian functions */ > > e again why?? > Why is this a compiletime hack? > Either you care about either-endian on disk, at which point it has to be > a runtime thing, or you make the on disk layout fixed endian, at whic

Re: [PATCH 01/14] GFS: headers

2005-09-01 Thread viro
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:19:34PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > +/* Endian functions */ > > e again why?? > Why is this a compiletime hack? > Either you care about either-endian on disk, at which point it has to be > a runtime thing, or you make the on disk layout fixed endian, at which

Re: [PATCH 01/14] GFS: headers

2005-09-01 Thread Arjan van de Ven
> +#ifndef TRUE > +#define TRUE 1 > +#endif > + > +#ifndef FALSE > +#define FALSE 0 > +#endif eh why can't you just use the regular kernel conventions > + > +#define NO_CREATE 0 > +#define CREATE 1 > + > +#define NO_WAIT 0 > +#define WAIT 1 > + > +#define NO_FORCE 0 > +#define FORCE 1 these de

[PATCH 01/14] GFS: headers

2005-09-01 Thread David Teigland
Central header files that are widely used. Signed-off-by: Ken Preslan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/gfs2/gfs2.h | 77 +++ fs/gfs2/incore.h| 691 +++ include/linux/gfs2_ioctl.h | 30 + include/l