Re: 2.4.2 fs/inode.c

2001-03-26 Thread Chris Mason
On Thursday, March 22, 2001 01:42:15 PM -0500 Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I found some code that seems wrong and didn't even match it's comment. > Patch is against 2.4.2, but should go cleanly against 2.4.3-pre6 as well. > Ok, this looks correct, makes reiserfs faster, and surv

Re: 2.4.2 fs/inode.c

2001-03-22 Thread Chris Mason
On Thursday, March 22, 2001 07:04:52 PM + "Stephen C. Tweedie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:42:15PM -0500, Jan Harkes wrote: >> >> I found some code that seems wrong and didn't even match it's comment. >> Patch is against 2.4.2, but should go cleanly aga

Re: 2.4.2 fs/inode.c

2001-03-22 Thread Jan Harkes
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:04:52PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:42:15PM -0500, Jan Harkes wrote: > > > > I found some code that seems wrong and didn't even match it's comment. > > Patch is against 2.4.2, but should go cleanly against 2.4.3-pre6 as well. >

Re: 2.4.2 fs/inode.c

2001-03-22 Thread Stephen C. Tweedie
Hi, On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:42:15PM -0500, Jan Harkes wrote: > > I found some code that seems wrong and didn't even match it's comment. > Patch is against 2.4.2, but should go cleanly against 2.4.3-pre6 as well. Patch looks fine to me. Have you tested it? If this goes wrong, things break

2.4.2 fs/inode.c

2001-03-22 Thread Jan Harkes
I found some code that seems wrong and didn't even match it's comment. Patch is against 2.4.2, but should go cleanly against 2.4.3-pre6 as well. Jan --- linux/fs/inode.c.orig Thu Mar 22 13:20:55 2001 +++ linux/fs/inode.cThu Mar 22 13:21:32 2001 @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ if (sb) {