On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56:59AM +0400, a3at.mail@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> After I tested ext4 dev branch (eb3e7abb161ad5), without any xfs-tests complaints,
> I understand what goes wrong, you have not last version of
> this patch, the latest is v3.
> (Actually you have description from last patch, but not the latest changes.)
What I did was to take your v3 version of the patch, and then since
that patch removed the label failed_mount5, I changed instances of
failed_mount4a to failed_mount5, just for aesthetic reasons.
So there is no substantive difference between what is in the ext4
patch queue and your v3 patch. All I did was this:
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index d73f1d9..01c5088 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -4100,14 +4100,14 @@ no_journal:
if (err) {
ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to reserve %llu clusters for "
"reserved pool", ext4_calculate_resv_clusters(sb));
- goto failed_mount4a;
+ goto failed_mount5;
}
err = ext4_setup_system_zone(sb);
if (err) {
ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "failed to initialize system "
"zone (%d)", err);
- goto failed_mount4a;
+ goto failed_mount5;
}
err = ext4_register_li_request(sb, first_not_zeroed);
@@ -4184,7 +4184,7 @@ failed_mount7:
ext4_unregister_li_request(sb);
failed_mount6:
ext4_release_system_zone(sb);
-failed_mount4a:
+failed_mount5:
dput(sb->s_root);
sb->s_root = NULL;
failed_mount4:
Did you actually test your v3 patch on top of the dev branch? Or did
you just note that the patch in the ext4 patch queue was different,
and assumed it was the v2 version of your patch?
Regards,
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
