[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Test for sb_getblk return value

Thanks a lot for your patience and review. And also for the document. It
was really helpfull. Patch follows in next mail.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 04:32:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Glauber de Oliveira Costa <> wrote:
> >
> > I'm resending it now with the changes you suggested.
> > Actually, 2 copies of it follows.
> argh. Please never attach multiple patches to a single email.
> And please always include a complete, uptodate changelog with each iteration
> of a patch. I don't want to have to troll back through the mailing list,
> identify the initial changelog and then replay the email thread making any
> needed updates to that changelog.
> Also please review section 11 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches then
> include a Signed-off-by: with your patches.
> > In the first one(v2), I kept the style in the changes in resize.c, as this
> > seems to be the default way things like this are done there. In the other,
> > (v3), I did statement checks in the way you suggested in both files.
> Don't worry about the surrounding style - if it's wrong, it's wrong. Just
> stick with Documentation/CodingStyle.
> Do this:
> if (!bh) {
> and not this:
> if (!bh){
> > Also, sorry for the last mail. I got a problem with my relay, and my mail
> > address was sent wrong before I noticed that. Mails sent to it will probably
> > return.
> The change to update_backups() is wrong - it will leave a JBD transaction
> open on return.
> Please fix all that up and resend.
> may prove useful,
> thanks.

Glauber de Oliveira Costa
IBM Linux Technology Center - Brazil
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-10-19 14:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean