[PATCH 00/49] xfsprogs: patches for crc-dev branch

[Michael L. Semon]

On 07/19/2013 02:44 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:

> Comments, thoughts, flames?

I was hoping that I could use this 3.12 patchset with a 3.11.0-rc 
kernel, but the xfstests look like a disaster by going that way.  
The combination of 3.12 XFS code and 3.12 xfsprogs seems to be 
working well.  xfs_repair, mkfs.xfs, and xfs_logprint still seem 
to work either way.

The following patches had issues during the `git am` session:

# Patch 11
Applying: libxfs: sync xfs_ialloc.c to the kernel code
/usr/src/xfs/xfsprogs/.git/rebase-apply/patch:226: trailing whitespace.
		/* 
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.

# Patch 20
Applying: xfs: separate dquot on disk format definitions out of xfs_quota.h
/usr/src/xfs/xfsprogs/.git/rebase-apply/patch:64: trailing whitespace.
 * This header file defines all the on-disk format definitions for 
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.

# Patch 27
Applying: xfs: move inode fork definitions to a new header file
fatal: corrupt patch at line 2313
Patch failed at 0001 xfs: move inode fork definitions to a new header file
The copy of the patch that failed is found in:
   /usr/src/xfs/xfsprogs/.git/rebase-apply/patch
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --resolved".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".

# Deleted the blank line from the patch (Thunderbird save error?).
# Patch 27 (Take 2)
Applying: xfs: move inode fork definitions to a new header file

# Patch 49
Applying: xfsprogs: add dtype support to mkfs and db
/usr/src/xfs/xfsprogs/.git/rebase-apply/patch:163: new blank line at EOF.
+
warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.

In other words, everything works so far.  Again, on one PC, the xfstests 
results are awful, with many xfs/* tests failing.  The results have yet 
to be reviwed closely, though.  There's a chance that something in 
xfstests didn't build against xfsprogs...unless all the hole punch and 
dmapi tests really are having issues...not enough info yet...

Thanks!

Michael