Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:04:17 +0300 | From | Oleg Drokin <> | Subject | Re: 2.4 iget5_locked port attempt to 2.4 |
| |
Hello!
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:57:19PM +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > > It's me again, I basically got no reply for this iget5_locked patch > > > > I have now. Would there be any objections if I try push it to Marcelo > > > > tomorrow? ;) > > > I just binned it. Certainly its not the kind of stuff I want to test in -ac, > > > too many VFS changes outside reiserfs > > Andrew Morton said "iget5_locked() looks simple enough, and as far as I can > > tell does not change any existing code - it just adds new stuff.", > > also this code (in its 2.5 incarnation) was tested in 2.5 for long time already. > > Also it fixes real bug (and while I have another reiserfs-only fix for the bug, > > it is fairly inelegant). > I agree it should go into 2.4 but I don't think the patches you are > submitting should go in. From what I can see they are an older version > compared to what actually went into 2.5. (I am basing this on the comments
What I am submitting is just changesets 1.373.172.1..1.373.172.6 from 2.5 bk tree. So these patches are what went into 2.5 (plus all the bugs I have made during adapting these to 2.4, of course).
> to the functions rather than thorough code comparisons but I don't have > time to look at it more in depth atm.) Why don't you use the actual 2.5 > code and make new patches or at least make use of the patches that finally > went into 2.5?
Looking at the changelog, it seems much later on there were ifind_fast() and ifind() additions to this code, but I was not sure I should take these too. I can though, if people think that would be useful.
Bye, Oleg - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |