From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22147F3F for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:18:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CD2304032 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id d4OFnDvRxfBMRfXk for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:17:58 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] xfs: convert directory vector functions to constants Message-ID: <20131017001758.GP4446@dastard> References: <1381789085-21923-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1381789085-21923-20-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20131016211615.GD1935@sgi.com> <20131016222317.GM4446@dastard> <20131016225204.GE1935@sgi.com> <20131016230618.GF1935@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131016230618.GF1935@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 06:06:18PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 05:52:04PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:23:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:16:15PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:18:05AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > > > > > > > Many of the vectorised function calls now take no parameters and > > > > > return a constant value. There is no reason for these to be vectored > > > > > functions, so convert them to constants > > > > > > > > > > Binary sizes: > > > > > > > > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > > > > 794490 96802 1096 892388 d9de4 fs/xfs/xfs.o.orig > > > > > 792986 96802 1096 890884 d9804 fs/xfs/xfs.o.p1 > > > > > 792350 96802 1096 890248 d9588 fs/xfs/xfs.o.p2 > > > > > 789293 96802 1096 887191 d8997 fs/xfs/xfs.o.p3 > > > > > 789005 96802 1096 886903 d8997 fs/xfs/xfs.o.p4 > > > > > 789061 96802 1096 886959 d88af fs/xfs/xfs.o.p5 > > > > > 789733 96802 1096 887631 d8b4f fs/xfs/xfs.o.p6 > > > > > 791421 96802 1096 889319 d91e7 fs/xfs/xfs.o.p7 > > > > > 791701 96802 1096 889599 d92ff fs/xfs/xfs.o.p8 > > > > > 791205 96802 1096 889103 d91cf fs/xfs/xfs.o.p9 > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > > > > > > > > Hmmm. This one doesn't seem to apply. Maybe it's just me. > > > > > > Applies without mismatch here on an 3.12-rc5 + oss-xfs/master tree > > > here. What's the reject that you get? > > > > Like so: > > > > $ q pu > > Applying patch xfs-convert-directory-vector-functions-to-constants.patch > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_da_format.c > > Hunk #13 FAILED at 571. > > Hunk #14 FAILED at 608. > > Hunk #15 succeeded at 641 (offset -74 lines). > > Hunk #16 FAILED at 729. > > Hunk #17 succeeded at 683 (offset -82 lines). > > Hunk #18 FAILED at 779. > > Hunk #19 succeeded at 728 (offset -87 lines). > > Hunk #20 FAILED at 829. > > 5 out of 20 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file fs/xfs/xfs_da_format.c > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2.c > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2.h > > Hunk #4 FAILED at 92. > > 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2.h > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_block.c > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_data.c > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_node.c > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 274. > > Hunk #2 succeeded at 1267 (offset -1 lines). > > Hunk #3 succeeded at 1299 (offset -1 lines). > > Hunk #4 succeeded at 1408 (offset -1 lines). > > 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_node.c > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c > > patching file fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_sf.c > > Patch xfs-convert-directory-vector-functions-to-constants.patch does not apply (enforce with -f) > > > > That's on 74564fb48. > > To be more specific, these are the rejects. Maybe I missed a patch. Looks like you might be missing patch 18 as all the rejects are against hunks introduced by that patch. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs