From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:59816 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751671AbcKIB0u (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 20:26:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:23:43 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfs: for-next branch updated to 84716639acc3 Message-ID: <20161109012343.GE28922@dastard> References: <20161108231639.GC28922@dastard> <20161109000152.GB16813@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161109000152.GB16813@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, tytso@mit.edu, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:01:53PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:16:39AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > The for-next branch of the xfs kernel repository at > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git > > > > has just been updated. > > > > This update includes the DAX iomap PMD fault infrastructure, a bunch > > of libxfs cleanups that sync the kernel code with changes that > > have been made in the userspace libxfs and a few bug fixes thrown in > > there for good measure. > > /me notices the commit message for 132f2ac5055a96 ("xfs: check minimum block > size for CRC filesystems") says that you cleaned up the XFS_MIN_CRC_BLOCKSIZE > check, but the patch appears identical to the one that I sent. I think all > you changed was removing the unlikely()...? > > ( I doubt it's a big deal either way really...) Ok, that's a little strange. Hmmm - looks like I hadn't saved the modified file when I refreshed the patch after modifying the commit message. I've already updated my local for-next tree, so when I next push it out it will have this update in it. /me accidentally demonstrates why he uses topic branches to isolate different bodies of work and the reasons that for-next needs to be considered an unstable branch... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com