xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the xfs tree

To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the xfs tree
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:59:50 +1000
Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100726115116.1e6de038.sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100726115116.1e6de038.sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:51:16AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> [These became irrelevant when I reverted the xfs tree for a build error,
> but will be done when the xfs tree is fixed.]
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c between commit
> 7346e1197eb76e22199b6b4625f129331e0fd7ac ("xfs simplify and speed up
> direct I/O completions") from the xfs tree and commit
> b682ce06449c35a85dc5e63fcaab7dba2ba6df9b ("sort out blockdev_direct_IO
> variants") from the vfs tree.
> 
> Also between commit 6f6b39eb706f5617750cf02952e4e6d7470c40bf ("xfs: use
> GFP_NOFS for page cache allocation") from the xfs tree and commit
> 4478b21470275454f9eb6f590dfe7cc54d643978 ("get rid of
> block_write_begin_newtrunc") from the vfs tree.
> 
> I fixed them up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.

The fix looks OK. Thanks Stephen.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>