Re: [patch] Updated bfs to use new mark_buffers_dirty interface

Rasmus, I think it is worth it to clarify this even if you already understood it yourself - other readers of linux-kernel may find it useful (and those who find it too obvious will forgive me). The concept of Linux subsystem maintainer doesn't mean that _any_ changes to his subsystem should go

Re: [patch] Updated bfs to use new mark_buffers_dirty interface

On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Rasmus Andersen wrote: > Hi. > > I have changed the interface to mark_buffer_dirty (as per your > suggestion to Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo). This impacts bfs as per > the following patch. > Rasmus, thanks of course, but this idea _only_ makes sense if you produce a big

[patch] Updated bfs to use new mark_buffers_dirty interface

Hi. I have changed the interface to mark_buffer_dirty (as per your suggestion to Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo). This impacts bfs as per the following patch. diff -u --recursive -X misc/dontdiff linux-240test8-pre2/fs/bfs/dir.c linux/fs/bfs/dir.c --- linux-240test8-pre2/fs/bfs/dir.cThu Aug 24

[patch] Updated bfs to use new mark_buffers_dirty interface

Hi. I have changed the interface to mark_buffer_dirty (as per your suggestion to Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo). This impacts bfs as per the following patch. diff -u --recursive -X misc/dontdiff linux-240test8-pre2/fs/bfs/dir.c linux/fs/bfs/dir.c --- linux-240test8-pre2/fs/bfs/dir.cThu Aug 24

Re: [patch] Updated bfs to use new mark_buffers_dirty interface

On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Rasmus Andersen wrote: Hi. I have changed the interface to mark_buffer_dirty (as per your suggestion to Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo). This impacts bfs as per the following patch. Rasmus, thanks of course, but this idea _only_ makes sense if you produce a big patch that