On Tue, Sep 08 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On 09/08/2009 12:23 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> int i, err;
>> struct ubifs_info *c = sb->s_fs_info;
>> - struct writeback_control wbc = {
>> - .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL,
>> - .range_start = 0,
>> - .range_end = LLONG_MAX,
>> - .nr_to_write = LONG_MAX,
>> - };
>>
>> /*
>> * Zero @wait is just an advisory thing to help the file system shove
>> @@ -462,7 +456,7 @@ static int ubifs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
>> * the user be able to get more accurate results of 'statfs()' after
>> * they synchronize the file system.
>> */
>> - generic_sync_sb_inodes(sb,&wbc);
>> + sync_inodes_sb(sb);
>
> This call is unnecessary and I've removed it and the patch is sitting in
> linux-next for long time:
> http://git.infradead.org/ubifs-2.6.git/commit/887ee17117fd23e962332b353d250ac9e090b20f
>
> Stephen e-mailed about the conflict recently. Could we please resolve the
> conflict? I guess if you pick up my patch then git will be able to resolve
> stuff automatically.
Would seem weird for me to carry your patch. As the issue is resolved in
-next, I'd say we just let whomever gets to merge last resolve it at
their end.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
