From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sanitize xattr handler prototypes
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:58:40 +0000
Message-ID: <1257933520.2718.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20091103154448.GB23101@lst.de>
	 <1257268307.6052.764.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20091110121941.c814d4c9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28630 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752479AbZKKJ42 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:56:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20091110121941.c814d4c9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Hi,

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:19 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:11:47 +0000
> Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 16:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Add a flags argument to strcut xattr_handler and pass it to all xattr           
> > > handler methods.  This allows using the same methods for multiple               
> > > handlers, e.g. for the ACL methods which perform exactly the same action        
> > > for the access and default ACLs, just using a different underlying              
> > > attribute.  With a little more groundwork it'll also allow sharing the          
> > > methods for the regular user/trusted/secure handlers in extN, ocfs2 and         
> > > jffs2 like it's already done for xfs in this patch.
> > > 
> > > Also change the inode argument to the handlers to a dentry to allow             
> > > using the handlers mechnism for filesystems that require it later,              
> > > e.g. cifs. 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>                                   
> > > Reviewed-by: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
> > > Acked-by: Joel Becker <joel.becker@oracle.com>
> > > 
> > GFS2 bits Acked-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
> > 
> 
> GFS2 bits Buggered-up-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
> 
> patching file fs/gfs2/acl.c
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 185.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 196.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 205.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 217.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 231.
> 5 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/gfs2/acl.c.rej
> patching file fs/gfs2/inode.c
> patching file fs/gfs2/xattr.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 567 (offset 30 lines).
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 1118 (offset 30 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 1129 (offset 30 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 1154 (offset 30 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 1182 (offset 30 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 1222 (offset 30 lines).
> Hunk #7 FAILED at 1530.
> 1 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/gfs2/xattr.c.rej
> 
> linux-next changes have made rather a mess of this patch.

The changes required to allow the patch to apply are pretty small, but
I'm not really sure about the best path forward at this
point :( Updating the patch is easy, but the question is which tree
should it go in when its been updated?

Steve.