From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q8PDWGSp060375 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:32:16 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id PJNBml3iq3PoEmYw for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8PDXWuk017299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:33:33 -0400 Received: from andromeda.usersys.redhat.com ([10.3.113.16]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8PDXTxQ029176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:33:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:33:29 -0300 From: Carlos Maiolino Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] xfs: Fix mp->m_maxagi update during inode64 remount Message-ID: <20120925133329.GA10780@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1348147961-7520-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> <1348147961-7520-5-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> <20120925093715.GF9189@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120925093715.GF9189@infradead.org> 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 05:37:15AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:32:39AM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > With the changes made on xfs_set_inode64(), to make it behave as > > xfs_set_inode32() (now leaving to the caller the responsibility to update > > mp->m_maxagi), we use the return value of xfs_set_inode64() to update > > mp->m_maxagi during remount. > > > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino > > Shouldn;t this be part of the previous patch? > > Otherwise looks good. > dchinner suggested to keep small changes into different patches, once the xfs_set_inode64() was added previously, adding a separate patche to add xfs_set_inode32() and another one to change the behaviour of both functions looks reasonable to me > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- --Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs