From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6517F3F for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:36:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1DA38F8039 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id WcMgv88NUoY0xeWq (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:35:56 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_vn_rename by xfs_vn_rename2 Message-ID: <20141017093556.GA9146@infradead.org> References: <1413397042-32229-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> <1413397042-32229-2-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> <20141016210457.GA33732@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141016210457.GA33732@bfoster.bfoster> 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: Brian Foster Cc: Carlos Maiolino , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 05:04:57PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > The function rename seems unnecessary..? Meh, not a big deal to me > either way. Otherwise, this one seems Ok. Yeah, we might as well keep the old name. As far as I'm concerned I'd love to get rid of the two different IOPS in the VFS, too. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs