From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id oBEJFN88144415 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:15:27 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 855B51EAFC9 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:17:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id xSF7CWWF6EolsNs9 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:17:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:17:13 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: xfstests: fix 108 through config mechanism Message-ID: <20101214191713.GA26513@infradead.org> References: <1291905612.3196.49.camel@dhcp-31-190.brq.redhat.com> <20101210143717.GB1415@infradead.org> <1292338417.3296.57.camel@dhcp-31-190.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1292338417.3296.57.camel@dhcp-31-190.brq.redhat.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: Boris Ranto Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 03:53:37PM +0100, Boris Ranto wrote: > I didn't like it much either but I found it quite easy to implement with quite high probability of future usage. > > I found the following modification sufficient although I'm not sure I put the _filter_spaces in right place (I'd say it's quite universal so it could find a usage in other cases): This patch looks good to me. Can you resent it in the correct format: - a descriptive subject - mail body containing a short explanation, than the signed-off-by line, then the actual patch. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs