On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 12:03:57PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > DAX wants different semantics from any currently-existing ext4 > > get_block callback. Unlike ext4_get_block_write(), it needs to honour > > the 'create' flag, and unlike ext4_get_block(), it needs to be able > > to return unwritten extents. So introduce a new ext4_get_block_dax() > > which has those semantics. We could also change ext4_get_block_write() > > to honour the 'create' flag, but that might have consequences on other > > users that I do not currently understand. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Doesn't this make the first patch in the series redundant? As I explained in the cover letter, patch 1 already went to Ted. It might be on its way in, and it might not. Rather than sending a patch that applies to current mainline and forcing someone to fix up a conflict later, better to resend the patch as part of this series, and our tools will do the right thing no matter which order patches go into Linus' tree. -- 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
