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, 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>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux