Re: [PATCH -V1] ext4: Use new buffer_head flag to check uninit group bitmaps initialization

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 08:24:10PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/jbd2.h b/include/linux/jbd2.h
> > index 4932b34..6694561 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/jbd2.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/jbd2.h
> > @@ -329,6 +329,7 @@ enum jbd_state_bits {
> >  	BH_State,		/* Pins most journal_head state */
> >  	BH_JournalHead,		/* Pins bh->b_private and jh->b_bh */
> >  	BH_Unshadow,		/* Dummy bit, for BJ_Shadow wakeup filtering */
> > +	BH_JBD_State_bits_End,
> >  };
> >  
> >  BUFFER_FNS(JBD, jbd)
> 
> Note: this conflicts with a patch by Mark Fasheh which does something
> very similar, since OCFS2 also needs some private BH flags.  He used
> the name BH_JBDPrivateStart, though.
> 
> Originally the plan was going to be that Mark was going to send this
> to Linus, but given that we need it as well, I suggest that we drop it
> into both the OCFS2 and ext4 trees, and whichever one hits Linus's
> tree first will win, and in the other case the magic of git's merge
> algorithms should make the right thing happen in the second.  (Or the
> other team can drop the patch before they merge; either will do the
> right thing.)
> 
> For this path, it would mean dropping this hunk and adding Mark's
> patch to the ext4 tree.  If this makes sense to everyone, Aneesh, you
> don't need to send a patch; I can fix up the one you sent easily
> enough.

Should be fine.

-aneesh