From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com ([192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m72FUK3R011567 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:30:21 -0700 Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BBD8C1972F01 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Tp0wGIyr9dOUxEEY for ; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:31:35 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/21] implement generic xfs_btree_rshift Message-ID: <20080802153135.GD19689@lst.de> References: <20080729193125.GP19104@lst.de> <20080730060808.GP13395@disturbed> <20080801194914.GI1263@lst.de> <20080802012042.GN6201@disturbed> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080802012042.GN6201@disturbed> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:20:42AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > It's the only leakage of the detailed inode root implementation into > > the generic code, so I'm still wondering whether a method would be > > better. > > Ah, right. yes, it probably would be cleaner to do it as a > separate method, but ?? don't think it's that important right now. That's why I left the XXX in, this is something to get right eventually, just not now :)