From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k8KEYWaG004943 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:34:32 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 23CF545697F for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <45114346.8020905@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:33:58 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill leftover WANT_FUNCS macro indirection References: <44CAE247.6020608@sandeen.net> <4510C017.4040200@oss.sgi.com> <451128D8.2030704@melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <451128D8.2030704@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: chatz@melbourne.sgi.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chatterton wrote: > Eric, > > We already have a large number of changes queued up for 2.6.19, I'd prefer > that we don't add any more right now unless they are bug fixes. > > I've raised a pv with the patch so that it doesn't get dropped. No problem, and I'm not hung up about the change, just wondered if I should keep it in my patch stack or if it had been dismissed as undesirable. Thanks, -Eric > Thanks, > > David > > > linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com wrote: >> Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> This gets rid of some pointless macro defines... I had a version that >>> lower-cased it all too but Nathan liked this better, and he's the man! :) >>> >>> -Eric >> Hm, what was the verdict on this one? >> >> -Eric >> >