On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > PS: last time I've separated that part of patch was a couple months
> > ago. See if something similar to the variant below would be OK with
> > you (I'll rediff it):
>
> This one looks fine.
Erm? It _does_ pull the fsync_dev() in there (conditionally, depending
on the "flag" argument of invalidate_dev()).
Oh, well... Check the variant I've sent to you couple of minutes ago and
tell which one you prefer, OK?
Al
PS: gotta love the email latency...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super() races Alexander Viro
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super() races Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super() races Alexander Viro
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super() rac... Alexander Viro
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super()... Linus Torvalds
- [PATCH] (1 of 2) cleanup for fixing g... Alexander Viro
- [PATCH] (1 of 2) cleanup for fixi... Alexander Viro
- [PATCH] (2 of 2) cleanup for fixi... Alexander Viro
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super()... Martin Dalecki
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_su... Alexander Viro
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing ge... Martin Dalecki
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super() rac... Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] cleanup for fixing get_super()... Alexander Viro

