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 824C57CA7 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 01:38:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556C1304043 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 23:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HXnd235h6IqrlrUU (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 23:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 23:38:48 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/71] xfs: introduce tracepoints for AG reservation code Message-ID: <20160906063848.GB11411@infradead.org> References: <147216791538.867.12413509832420924168.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <147216795137.867.2930536284130968371.stgit@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <147216795137.867.2930536284130968371.stgit@birch.djwong.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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com > +/* dummy definitions to avoid breaking bisectability; will be removed later */ > +#ifndef XFS_AG_RESV_DUMMY > +#define XFS_AG_RESV_DUMMY This seems really odd. Why would we need this exaxtly? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs