From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p6PFvbvH009053 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:57:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12 v3] xfs: Remove the macro XFS_BUF_ZEROFLAGS From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20110724113959.GD26332@infradead.org> References: <20110722233933.14612.65879.sendpatchset@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com> <20110722233945.14612.1955.sendpatchset@chandra-lucid.beaverton.ibm.com> <20110724113959.GD26332@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:57:32 -0500 Message-ID: <1311609452.2914.23.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Chandra Seetharaman , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 07:39 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > @@ -1247,6 +1247,7 @@ xlog_bdstrat( > > { > > struct xlog_in_core *iclog = bp->b_fspriv; > > > > + bp->b_flags &= ~(XBF_FUA|XBF_FLUSH); > > I don't think this is correct, we set these before calling into > xlog_bdstrat, so this means we'll always stip it off after that. > > Given that this area is more complicated than the pure macro removal > how about letting it as-is for now? I have some bigger refactoring > in this area in my queue, and I'll just incorporate the > XFS_BUF_ZEROFLAGS into it. Christoph, are you suggesting that this one hunk just be excluded from the series? Or the entire patch? -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs