Am Dienstag 15 Juni 2010, 02:08:20 schrieb Chris Mason: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:45:40PM +0200, Johannes Hirte wrote: > > Am Montag 14 Juni 2010, 23:16:01 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:11:20PM +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > Looks like you've applied the patch to a far too old kernel. It > > > > > can't be NULL for quite a while already. > > > > > > > > You're the expert, but it looks like it could be null in 2.6.34 like > > > > he says. I'm just looking at vfs_fsync_range() in > > > > "git show v2.6.34:fs/sync.c". > > > > > > 2.6.34 is far too old. > > > > For the changes yes, but not for working. I needed the btrfs fixes > > without all the other bugs introduced with 2.6.35-rc. I was to careless > > and pulled to much changes in. My fault. > > Well, my fault. I usually keep the btrfs-unstable tree against one > release old, and the users have come to expect it. > > I'll make a .34 branch that works. > > -chris What about backporting only the important patches to the stable series? Or would this be to much work for a still experimental filesystem? regards, Johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
