Re: [PATCH v6 19/20] xfs: minimal conversion to errseq_t writeback error reporting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

>  };
>  MODULE_ALIAS_FS("xfs");
>  
> -- 
> 2.13.0
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux