Wow... the superblock problem is something we haven't worked on yet... thanks! Martin's new code caused some xfstests regressions, but we got past all but the generic/028 regression... I don't know if Martin worked on that today, I wasn't in the office. I had fixed up what I saw wrong in debugfs, so I'll have to look again for the allocation failures... I haven't pushed Martin's re-worked code to kernel.org yet, since we were working through the couple of regressions, have you looked at it on his github repo, and it doesn't conflict with your patches? I'll look and see if I can get your patches to load on top of Martin's patches and get that pushed to kernel.org. I leave before dawn on Sunday morning for that Linux Foundation summit in Lake Tahoe, so if we get this thing merged now (I hope <g>) we'll have to continue to polish it through the rc's, but that's what they're there for, right? -Mike On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 05:03:55PM -0400, Mike Marshall wrote: >> Hi Al (and everyone)... >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/hubcap/linux.git >> for-next >> >> ... is updated to v4.5, it has the follow_link -> get_link change. >> >> I worked today to clean up the debugfs (and sysfs) problems, >> and we'll keep ticking things off the list, perhaps I should be >> posting patches here for review instead automatically updating >> for-next when we work on an issue... >> >> We're working on putting "the list" in a place that can be >> viewed by everyone and edited by both Martin and myself... > > FWIW, I've ported several cleanups + short read/write on error + lseek > fixes + orangefs_superblocks locking fixes on top of that branch and pushed > into vfs.git#orangefs-untested. > > I think it can be merged this cycle; if the fixes above really work, this > + Martin's latest should leave only the handling of allocation failures in > debugfs-related code. > > Linus, would you be OK with that thing going into -rc2? It's self-contained > and I think it's in reasonably sane shape. If not for the last locking fixes, > I would even suggest -rc1 with fixups of debugfs issues during the next week, > but that last commit got no testing whatsoever... ;-/ > > I would prefer if pull request went from Mike, once he's OK with the whole > set, but as far as I'm concerned the material in his #for-next + my pile above > + Martin's branch (getattr fixes) should be OK for mainline merge. -- 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
