On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the xfs tree got a conflict in
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.h between commit
bc990f5cb424cdca9dda866785d088e2c2110ecc ("xfs: fix locking in
xfs_iget_cache_hit") from Linus' tree and commit
370f048214b4e9aa2102fa3c454ae1374da287c5 ("xfs: add more statics &
drop
some unused functions") from the xfs tree.
Sorry, I didn't realize that there is a merge between linux-next,
which uses the xfs master tree, and the Linus' tree.
Just context changes (add/remove). I fixed it up (see below) and can
carry the fix as necessary.
Thanks for the fix, but there is no need to carrying it separately
from the xfs master tree. I merged the bc990f5 commit back into the
the master tree, and fixed all conflicts (there was another one in
fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c). I planned to do it anyway for 2.6.32.
Thanks,
Felix
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
diff --cc fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.h
index 5912060,23e7e7e..0000000
--- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.h
@@@ -48,8 -48,6 +48,7 @@@ int xfs_reclaim_inode(struct xfs_inode
int xfs_reclaim_inodes(struct xfs_mount *mp, int mode);
void xfs_inode_set_reclaim_tag(struct xfs_inode *ip);
+void __xfs_inode_set_reclaim_tag(struct xfs_perag *pag, struct
xfs_inode *ip);
- void xfs_inode_clear_reclaim_tag(struct xfs_inode *ip);
void __xfs_inode_clear_reclaim_tag(struct xfs_mount *mp, struct
xfs_perag *pag,
struct xfs_inode *ip);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
