xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: updates for 4.6-rc1

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: updates for 4.6-rc1
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:34:14 -0400
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=WZVZzh/l21nRGDni49sN2FUmUUTcjGv2u3xxdDamKOg=; b=GA/Zw+Fu1cT+cg1clNp8ls8A6BF5xwPUQDysG9SDcBUA+coCCEd0e8+GlP1P+tZAOKKKjK1n2sjieAM4Rdj0tkmby8qXX6fBFQuJJBfPE1X5Q254E6bNAuR283aqPg500Ubjh2SOSrUf4p8qfyKWjPNx3iUHgzTY9a4/RLmLJms=;
In-reply-to: <20160321091628.GE30819@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20160321020505.GJ11812@dastard> <20160321091628.GE30819@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Thanks Jan, for checking the merge.

I didn't realize the ext4 fixups were going in via the xfs tree.  I
didn't see any merge conflicts from the linux-next tree (or maybe I
missed it) so I had assumed it wasn't in Dave's xfs.git tree.  My plan
had been to deal with it after the prereq patch went in via the xfs
tree --- in fact I was thinking about checking to see if the xfs.git
tree had been merged so I could get the ext4 commit merged and sent to
Linus.

Sorry I lost track of things.  If I had known I would have indeed
manually merged in the branch, resolved the merge, and done a
regression test cycle before pushing to Linus.

                                                - Ted
                                                
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:16:28AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 21-03-16 13:05:05, Dave Chinner wrote:
> The resolution of conflict in fs/ext4/inode.c is fine except for one minor
> issue:
> 
> > diff --cc fs/ext4/inode.c
> > index b2e9576,2b98171..e5ba3b0
> > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > @@@ -3289,10 -3161,10 +3289,10 @@@ out
> >   }
> >   #endif
> >   
> > - static void ext4_end_io_dio(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset,
> > + static int ext4_end_io_dio(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset,
> >                         ssize_t size, void *private)
> >   {
> >  -        ext4_io_end_t *io_end = iocb->private;
> >  +        ext4_io_end_t *io_end = private;
> >   
> >     /* if not async direct IO just return */
> >     if (!io_end)
> > @@@ -3300,8 -3172,18 +3300,17 @@@
> >   
> >     ext_debug("ext4_end_io_dio(): io_end 0x%p "
> >               "for inode %lu, iocb 0x%p, offset %llu, size %zd\n",
> >  -            iocb->private, io_end->inode->i_ino, iocb, offset,
> >  -            size);
> >  +            io_end, io_end->inode->i_ino, iocb, offset, size);
> >   
> > +   iocb->private = NULL;
> 
> The line above should not exist in the result. It does no harm but is
> unnecessary.
> 
>                                                               Honza
> -- 
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR

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