On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:23:15AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Just set the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag to indicate that we want to use errseq_t
> based error reporting. Internal filemap_* calls are left as-is for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> index 455a575f101d..28d3be187025 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> @@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
> .name = "xfs",
> .mount = xfs_fs_mount,
> .kill_sb = kill_block_super,
> - .fs_flags = FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
> + .fs_flags = FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_WB_ERRSEQ,
Huh? Why are there two patches with the same subject line? And this
same bit of code too? Or ... 11/13, 11/20? What's going on here?
<confused>
--D
> };
> MODULE_ALIAS_FS("xfs");
>
> --
> 2.13.0
>
> --
> 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
