From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56907 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750954Ab2JISZF (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:25:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:25:03 -0700 From: Mark Fasheh To: Jan Schmidt Cc: Chris Mason , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] btrfs: extended inode refs Message-ID: <20121009182503.GW8097@wotan.suse.de> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh References: <1345494561-28758-1-git-send-email-mfasheh@suse.de> <1345494561-28758-4-git-send-email-mfasheh@suse.de> <50741E0D.30505@jan-o-sch.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <50741E0D.30505@jan-o-sch.net> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 > > --- > > 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 > 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