diff for duplicates of <1307929838-sup-4118@shiny> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 35ae3b4..aa62f42 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,49 +1,35 @@ Excerpts from Andi Kleen's message of 2011-06-12 21:02:54 -0400: > Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> writes: ->=20 +> > > Hi everyone, > > > > The for-linus branch of the btrfs unstable tree: > > -> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.= -git for-linus ->=20 +> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git for-linus +> > > -> > Has our current queue of fixes. Josef's is the biggest pile, mostl= -y in -> > the allocator. Josef and I both managed to merge his patch to avoi= -d -> > mapping the extent buffer if skip_locking was set, git merge is jus= -t a +> > Has our current queue of fixes. Josef's is the biggest pile, mostly in +> > the allocator. Josef and I both managed to merge his patch to avoid +> > mapping the extent buffer if skip_locking was set, git merge is just a > > little too easy sometimes (I double checked the resulting code). ->=20 +> > The new in 3.0 btrfs warnings on every build are still there: ->=20 -> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_root_attrs=E2=80=99 defi= -ned but not used -> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_super_attrs=E2=80=99 def= -ined but not used -> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_super_release=E2=80=99 = -defined but not used =20 -> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_root_release=E2=80=99 d= -efined but not used ->=20 +> +> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76: warning: ‘btrfs_root_attrs’ defined but not used +> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97: warning: ‘btrfs_super_attrs’ defined but not used +> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153: warning: ‘btrfs_super_release’ defined but not used +> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160: warning: ‘btrfs_root_release’ defined but not used +> > These are not even used inside any ifdef. It's unclear to me: were > these supposed to be used or removed? ->=20 +> > Probably better to remove since they seem to be untested, unless > it was a merge error? -Right, I've been trying to decide how much of the sysfs interface to ri= -p +Right, I've been trying to decide how much of the sysfs interface to rip out. We're not using it the way I had planned to, and Kay's proposed udev changes are better than my original plans for sysfs. One way or another I'll kill these off in the next rc. -chris --- -To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = -in -the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org -More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 323a754..89509cc 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -11,52 +11,38 @@ "b\0" "Excerpts from Andi Kleen's message of 2011-06-12 21:02:54 -0400:\n" "> Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> writes:\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> > Hi everyone,\n" "> >\n" "> > The for-linus branch of the btrfs unstable tree:\n" "> >\n" - "> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.=\n" - "git for-linus\n" - ">=20\n" + "> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git for-linus\n" + "> \n" "> >\n" - "> > Has our current queue of fixes. Josef's is the biggest pile, mostl=\n" - "y in\n" - "> > the allocator. Josef and I both managed to merge his patch to avoi=\n" - "d\n" - "> > mapping the extent buffer if skip_locking was set, git merge is jus=\n" - "t a\n" + "> > Has our current queue of fixes. Josef's is the biggest pile, mostly in\n" + "> > the allocator. Josef and I both managed to merge his patch to avoid\n" + "> > mapping the extent buffer if skip_locking was set, git merge is just a\n" "> > little too easy sometimes (I double checked the resulting code).\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> The new in 3.0 btrfs warnings on every build are still there:\n" - ">=20\n" - "> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_root_attrs=E2=80=99 defi=\n" - "ned but not used\n" - "> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_super_attrs=E2=80=99 def=\n" - "ined but not used\n" - "> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_super_release=E2=80=99 =\n" - "defined but not used =20\n" - "> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_root_release=E2=80=99 d=\n" - "efined but not used\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" + "> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76: warning: \342\200\230btrfs_root_attrs\342\200\231 defined but not used\n" + "> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97: warning: \342\200\230btrfs_super_attrs\342\200\231 defined but not used\n" + "> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153: warning: \342\200\230btrfs_super_release\342\200\231 defined but not used \n" + "> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160: warning: \342\200\230btrfs_root_release\342\200\231 defined but not used\n" + "> \n" "> These are not even used inside any ifdef. It's unclear to me: were\n" "> these supposed to be used or removed?\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> Probably better to remove since they seem to be untested, unless\n" "> it was a merge error?\n" "\n" - "Right, I've been trying to decide how much of the sysfs interface to ri=\n" - "p\n" + "Right, I've been trying to decide how much of the sysfs interface to rip\n" "out. We're not using it the way I had planned to, and Kay's proposed\n" "udev changes are better than my original plans for sysfs.\n" "\n" "One way or another I'll kill these off in the next rc.\n" "\n" - "-chris\n" - "--\n" - "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-btrfs\" =\n" - "in\n" - "the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n" - More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html + -chris -cdefc9ade18c3b98d1aa06e94f722ff528a3b569e41766333483b6295820fc61 +e721b5d7f50f558330c240f09e52a3217145d26c247934a0ee8de33422d2630e
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.