On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon 16-05-16 08:13:50, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 04:26:16PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >> >> 1) Just push patches as is and have ext4 dax broken between ext4 merge and >> >> nvdimm merge. >> >> >> >> 2) Split out the one-line change from "dax: Remove dead zeroing code from >> >> fault handlers" in __dax_fault() which fixes the behavior for ext4 and >> >> merge it through ext4 tree. Merge the rest through nvdimm tree. >> > >> > I'm good either way, although I have a slight preference for (2). >> > It's really tiny preference, though, so if you or Dan want to run the >> > fix through the dax branch, that's fine too. >> >> Would you fold the change and trigger a rebase or just apply it on >> top? If just applying on top then it seems the same exposure as >> merging it intact through nvdimm.git. > > The patch which fixes ext4 behavior is attached. Just that we know what we > are speaking about... Rebasing all the patches on top of this is trivial > (git rebase just handles the conflict automatically). > > I've scheduled full ext4 & XFS xfstest run with just this patch and ext4 > fixes to make sure it doesn't introduce some intermediate regresion > somewhere. > Ok, sounds good. It makes the most sense to base the nvdimm.git branch on top of this fix. -- 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
