On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 21:30 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:23:15AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Just set the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag to indicate that we want to use errseq_t
> > based error reporting. Internal filemap_* calls are left as-is for now.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > index 455a575f101d..28d3be187025 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > @@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
> > .name = "xfs",
> > .mount = xfs_fs_mount,
> > .kill_sb = kill_block_super,
> > - .fs_flags = FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
> > + .fs_flags = FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_WB_ERRSEQ,
>
> Huh? Why are there two patches with the same subject line? And this
> same bit of code too? Or ... 11/13, 11/20? What's going on here?
>
> <confused>
>
> --D
Oh my -- sorry about that. I ended up with two different interleaved
patchsets. The /20 series is the one I meant to send.
Just ignore these for now though, as I'll be sending a v7 (at least) to
address HCH's comments.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
