diff for duplicates of <4DF57067.2040808@cn.fujitsu.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 514c3fc..0e4da1f 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,35 +1,28 @@ 09:02, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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.g= -it 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, mostly= - in +>> 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 +>> 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? ->=20 +> diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 1f4b141..1043278 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -12,38 +12,31 @@ "b\0" "09:02, Andi Kleen wrote:\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.g=\n" - "it 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, mostly=\n" - " in\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=\n" - " a\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" - >=20 + > -924c1c46461a29b41876d9ebdabec30a8ebaaf6b0fa2b500072f19b283010d13 +fd1d0d98752c04a4470cf62a134309720a88bf2a95e28ac1c0d41739f7ed671c
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.