Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Kent Overstreet
Date: Friday, April 23, 2010 - 2:05 pm

On 04/23/2010 12:39 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:


I kind of like it, the way I use it it's shorthand for "return with x status"; 
it just makes return codes and exiting cleaner. But if you still hate it after 
you've read the functions where it's used, I can take it out.


If my understanding is correct, those are only needed for 64 bits, i indexes 
into a single node so 32 bits is plenty.


Yes, definitely.


Agreed.


Ok, I'll start on that.


Done.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3, Kent Overstreet, (Fri Apr 23, 12:41 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3, Randy Dunlap, (Fri Apr 23, 1:07 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3, Kent Overstreet, (Fri Apr 23, 1:17 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3, Randy Dunlap, (Fri Apr 23, 1:19 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3, Randy Dunlap, (Fri Apr 23, 1:39 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3, Kent Overstreet, (Fri Apr 23, 1:46 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3, Kent Overstreet, (Fri Apr 23, 2:05 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcache: ver 3, Pavel Machek, (Sun Apr 25, 4:48 am)