From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Price <anprice@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:41:54 +0100
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 00/44] fsck.gfs2: Support for checking
 gfs1 file systems
In-Reply-To: <2088573355.544443.1313095822128.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
References: <2088573355.544443.1313095822128.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4E451182.4070601@redhat.com>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Bob,

Doing an apply-and-build test on this patchset found a few trivial issues:

Firstly, "git am" found these whitespace issues:

  Applying: fsck.gfs2: split function check_leaf_blks to make it
  /home/andy/src/gfs2-utils/.git/rebase-apply/patch:16: trailing whitespace.
  static int warn_and_patch(struct gfs2_inode *ip, uint64_t *leaf_no,

  Applying: libgfs2: move gfs1 functions from edit to libgfs2
  /home/andy/src/gfs2-utils/.git/rebase-apply/patch:89: new blank line 
at EOF.
  +

And then, when building with gcc 4.6, the patchset introduces the 
following warnings:

  In file included from eattr.c:9:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  In file included from fs_recovery.c:12:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  initialize.c: In function ?reconstruct_single_journal?:
  initialize.c:1286:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?time? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  initialize.c: In function ?initialize?:
  initialize.c:630:5: warning: ?ret? may be used uninitialized in this 
function [-Wuninitialized]
  initialize.c:617:7: note: ?ret? was declared here

  In file included from inode_hash.c:11:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  In file included from link.c:12:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  In file included from main.c:18:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  metawalk.c: In function ?check_leaf_blks?:
  metawalk.c:622:6: warning: ?okay_to_fix? may be used uninitialized in 
this function [-Wuninitialized]
  metawalk.c:477:6: note: ?okay_to_fix? was declared here

  pass1b.c: In function ?handle_dup_blk?:
  pass1b.c:543:26: warning: variable ?ref_in_invalid_inode? set but not 
used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]

  pass1.c: In function ?pass1?:
  pass1.c:1567:11: warning: variable ?offset? set but not used 
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
  pass1.c:1566:11: warning: variable ?blk_count? set but not used 
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]

  In file included from pass1c.c:11:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  In file included from pass3.c:13:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  In file included from pass4.c:10:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  In file included from pass5.c:11:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  In file included from rgrepair.c:15:0:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

  In file included from fs_bits.h:5:0,
                   from util.c:14:
  fsck.h: In function ?is_dir?:
  fsck.h:145:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?S_ISDIR? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

Also I noticed that the subject lines in your patch emails were wrapped 
as this caused git am to chop the ends off the commit shortlogs.

Otherwise this looks like a really promising patchset, nice job :)

Andy