On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:33:28 -0400, Nick Krause said:
Other then the TODO list, which we can discuss here, is there any other parts of this patch that need to be rewritten, it's merged as of now
If this total turd of a patch was merged by an upstream maintainer, said maintainer needs to be taken out back and shot. And quite frankly, we don't care what you've merged into a local tree.
is how you want this cleaned up.
Take it out back and shoot it.
From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:09:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] btrfs: ioctl to clear unused space
Nick, you were *told* to quit trying to evade banishments by changing names. If this is actually from a Suse developer, they are perfectly able to do their own work and upstream it. If this is a patch from 2012 and *still* not upstreamed, there's probably good reasons for it.
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -3580,7 +3580,7 @@ again: if (btrfs_test_opt(root, DISCARD)) ret = btrfs_error_discard_extent(root, start, end + 1 - start, - NULL); + NULL, 1);
I don't know *what* you did to your git tree, but this is *not* how kernel code is formatted. People who submit code that's *THIS* poorly formatted even after they've been warned before are *not* welcome in the kernel community. I'm sorry Nick, but you've worn out pretty much all of whatever little welcome you had left.