From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C0A7CA3 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:34:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6513AC004 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id FBCZstwGZjYDYB7N (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:34:14 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: updates for 4.6-rc1 Message-ID: <20160321183414.GB3490@thunk.org> References: <20160321020505.GJ11812@dastard> <20160321091628.GE30819@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160321091628.GE30819@quack.suse.cz> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Jan Kara Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Thanks Jan, for checking the merge. I didn't realize the ext4 fixups were going in via the xfs tree. I didn't see any merge conflicts from the linux-next tree (or maybe I missed it) so I had assumed it wasn't in Dave's xfs.git tree. My plan had been to deal with it after the prereq patch went in via the xfs tree --- in fact I was thinking about checking to see if the xfs.git tree had been merged so I could get the ext4 commit merged and sent to Linus. Sorry I lost track of things. If I had known I would have indeed manually merged in the branch, resolved the merge, and done a regression test cycle before pushing to Linus. - Ted On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:16:28AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 21-03-16 13:05:05, Dave Chinner wrote: > The resolution of conflict in fs/ext4/inode.c is fine except for one minor > issue: > > > diff --cc fs/ext4/inode.c > > index b2e9576,2b98171..e5ba3b0 > > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c > > @@@ -3289,10 -3161,10 +3289,10 @@@ out > > } > > #endif > > > > - static void ext4_end_io_dio(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset, > > + static int ext4_end_io_dio(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset, > > ssize_t size, void *private) > > { > > - ext4_io_end_t *io_end = iocb->private; > > + ext4_io_end_t *io_end = private; > > > > /* if not async direct IO just return */ > > if (!io_end) > > @@@ -3300,8 -3172,18 +3300,17 @@@ > > > > ext_debug("ext4_end_io_dio(): io_end 0x%p " > > "for inode %lu, iocb 0x%p, offset %llu, size %zd\n", > > - iocb->private, io_end->inode->i_ino, iocb, offset, > > - size); > > + io_end, io_end->inode->i_ino, iocb, offset, size); > > > > + iocb->private = NULL; > > The line above should not exist in the result. It does no harm but is > unnecessary. > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara > SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs