On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:07:43AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:41:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > I lost track of the fact that the first patch went into -rc and thus > > > > confused myself over where this should apply. This applies to 4.11.0-rc4 > > > > and looks fine to me: > > > > > > Does anyone have a problem if I send this to Linus for 4.11-rc5? > > > I'd rather atone for my sins sooner than later. :) > > > > There's no urgency required here - it's just a cleanup patch. The > > code in the tree works fine, so why risk adding regressions > > at a late stage? Just add it to the for-next queue and let it soak > > until the merge window. > > Is current Linus tree ok? I'm pretty sure a recent Linus tree fell > over when running the dir fuzzers for me. Which commit would the > latest actual fix be? I think xfs/348 causes -rc4 to fall over if CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y due to the XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURNs that shouldn't be there. --D > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
