From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 06 Aug 2006 02:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mondschein.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtschiff.de [194.150.191.238] (may be forged)) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k769kFDW016444 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2006 02:46:15 -0700 Received: from localhost (dslb-084-056-104-201.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.56.104.201]) by mondschein.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0170FA68A for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:44:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:45:45 +0200 References: <44CAE247.6020608@sandeen.net> <44CBDFC9.3040202@sandeen.net> <20060731085454.A2280998@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20060731085454.A2280998@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608061145.45997.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Am Montag 31 Juli 2006 00:54 schrieb Nathan Scott: > Right, its more that we don't have a great track record at the moment > of not introducing regressions with these cleanups (including myself), > so I'm becoming more reluctant to do sweeping changes across the whole > codebase. Smaller, specific, and obviously-correct things are less > likely to introduce issues, so if we can achieve basically the same > thing while churning the code less, I'm all for it. Hello Nathan, I fully agree with that - especially as XFS is a file system and regressions can easily have desastrous results. Regards, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7