Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] btrfs: extended inode refs

[Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de>]

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Chris, Hi Mark,
> 
> I'm currently working on extended inode refs for btrfs send, reading the version
> of fs/btrfs/backref.c in Chris' next branch. Concerning commit
> f8728be56e48e4a64ed49a71c66b3e6436869838 ...
> 
> On Mon, August 20, 2012 at 22:29 (+0200), Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > Teach tree-log.c about extended inode refs. In particular, we have to adjust
> > the behavior of inode ref replay as well as log tree recovery to account for
> > the existence of extended refs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/backref.c  |   68 +++++++++++
> >  fs/btrfs/backref.h  |    5 +
> >  fs/btrfs/tree-log.c |  316 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  3 files changed, 337 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
> 
> I had made comments on v3 of this one, which were obviously ignored for v4. I
> did not reply to v4, which is the version in "next". Despite that, this commit
> has got a
> 
>     Reviewed-by: Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@jan-o-sch.net
> 
> Chris, can you please remove that tag from the commit mentioned?

Yes, this was clearly a mistake - pretty much neither of us could completely
figure out that code ;)

I think what happened is the Reviewed-by: from what *used* to be patch 3 got
accidentally applied to this one:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=134502070513822&w=4

They are very obviously different patches though.
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh