linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: simplify iteration codes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9bd6b5360901160720w3a2950eemaf2cd3e35caec788@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:20:06 +0800
From:	sniper <s3c24xx@...il.com>
To:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc:	Qinghuang Feng <qhfeng.kernel@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: simplify iteration codes

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 15:25 +0800, Qinghuang Feng wrote:
>> merge list_for_each and list_entry to list_for_each_entry.
>>
>
> Thanks, I've queued this up.
>
Good, but....

Now I have made a new patch for cleanupping all the similar codes in btrfs.
This patch has been tested in VM, it seems ok.

Now should I  rebuild another patch which based the previous patch,
or could you be able to reverse the previous patch then I just post
this new patch including all stuff?

Sorry I am not much familiar with the posting flow, and I am not sure
the meaning of "queued".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/