On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 12:41 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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.
That's Linus. Do you think it is nice to send him a pull request which
for sure requires requires manual work?
But well, if you do not want to carry my patch, then I'll have to
re-base my tree later, fix stuff, and send a pull request. I mean,
your stuff will for sure be merged first, because I send pull requests
late, just because UBIFS is a minor thing in the kernel.
:-(
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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
