--- On Mon, 17/9/12, Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > > > Oh, yes, there was a small conflict at the end of > super.c when I applied to 3.5.3: > > > > --------------- > > @@ -641,6 +672,7 @@ static void __exit > exit_hfsplus_fs(void) > > * destroy cache. > > */ > > rcu_barrier(); > > + hfsplus_destroy_attr_tree_cache(); > > > kmem_cache_destroy(hfsplus_inode_cachep); > > } > > > > ---------------- > > > > 3.5.3 does not have the "rcu_barrier();" line for > whatever reason - since the chunk seem to mean 'put > "hfsplus_destroy_attr_tree_cache();" towards the end of > __exit exit_hfsplus_fs() just before the last line', that's > what I did. > > > > But as far as I remember that was the only conflict - > that does not sound like what you describe though... > > Did you apply patch set by means of git or patch utility? I did "git am < e-mail-dump-from-you", after trying patch --dry-run, and modifying the e-mail-dump by hand as detailed above. (The actual procedure was more like, try 'git am' first, did not work, did "patch --dry-run", then "patch" to see the actual conflict, then edited the patch by hand, did 'git reset --hard" to get rid of the patch, then "git am" finally). Hin-Tak -- 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
