[GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Lachlan McIlroy]

Please pull from the for-linus branch:
    git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus

This will update the following files:

 fs/xfs/xfs_bit.c     |  103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h     |   27 ++-----------
 fs/xfs/xfs_rtalloc.c |   19 ++++++---
 3 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

through these commits:

commit ef8ece55d9b6825c28a5c1a4bd89b94040cb7b32
Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
Date:   Tue Feb 26 17:00:22 2008 +1100

    [XFS] Undo bit ops cleanup mod due to regression on 32-bit powermac
    platform.
    
    SGI-PV: 971186
    SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30559a
    
    Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>

commit db69c915e67705daac25cad06d816c09be634de0
Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
Date:   Tue Feb 26 17:00:14 2008 +1100

    [XFS] Undo bit ops cleanup mod due to regression on 32-bit powermac
    platform.
    
    SGI-PV: 974005
    SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30558a
    
    Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Eric Sandeen]

Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
> 
> This will update the following files:
> 
>  fs/xfs/xfs_bit.c     |  103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h     |   27 ++-----------
>  fs/xfs/xfs_rtalloc.c |   19 ++++++---
>  3 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

what's the thought on fixing the ikeep regression for 2.6.25?

-Eric

> through these commits:
> 
> commit ef8ece55d9b6825c28a5c1a4bd89b94040cb7b32
> Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
> Date:   Tue Feb 26 17:00:22 2008 +1100
> 
>     [XFS] Undo bit ops cleanup mod due to regression on 32-bit powermac
>     platform.
>     
>     SGI-PV: 971186
>     SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30559a
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
> 
> commit db69c915e67705daac25cad06d816c09be634de0
> Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
> Date:   Tue Feb 26 17:00:14 2008 +1100
> 
>     [XFS] Undo bit ops cleanup mod due to regression on 32-bit powermac
>     platform.
>     
>     SGI-PV: 974005
>     SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30558a
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
> 
> 

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Lachlan McIlroy]

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
>>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
>>
>> This will update the following files:
>>
>>  fs/xfs/xfs_bit.c     |  103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  fs/xfs/xfs_bit.h     |   27 ++-----------
>>  fs/xfs/xfs_rtalloc.c |   19 ++++++---
>>  3 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> what's the thought on fixing the ikeep regression for 2.6.25?
I think the thought is we need to!  Niv is looking into which way we are
going to fix it (Barry came up with an alternative) and I'll send out a git
pull request as soon as we've checked in the fix.

> 
> -Eric
> 
>> through these commits:
>>
>> commit ef8ece55d9b6825c28a5c1a4bd89b94040cb7b32
>> Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
>> Date:   Tue Feb 26 17:00:22 2008 +1100
>>
>>     [XFS] Undo bit ops cleanup mod due to regression on 32-bit powermac
>>     platform.
>>     
>>     SGI-PV: 971186
>>     SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30559a
>>     
>>     Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
>>
>> commit db69c915e67705daac25cad06d816c09be634de0
>> Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
>> Date:   Tue Feb 26 17:00:14 2008 +1100
>>
>>     [XFS] Undo bit ops cleanup mod due to regression on 32-bit powermac
>>     platform.
>>     
>>     SGI-PV: 974005
>>     SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30558a
>>     
>>     Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
>>
>>
> 
> 

[GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Lachlan McIlroy]

Please pull from the for-linus branch:
    git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus

This will update the following files:

 fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   14 +++++++-------
 fs/xfs/xfs_clnt.h            |    2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c          |    2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h           |    2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c          |    4 ++--
 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

through these commits:

commit b7405bb65a83e819dd3b21a6d9636c279d9ce79a
Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@sgi.com>
Date:   Fri Feb 29 13:58:40 2008 +1100

    [XFS] If you mount an XFS filesystem with no mount options at all, then
    the "ikeep" option is set rather than "noikeep".
    
    This regression was introduced in 970451.
    
    With no mount options specified, xfs_parseargs() does the following:
    
    int ikeep = 0;
    
    args->flags |= XFSMNT_BARRIER;
    
    args->flags2 |= XFSMNT2_COMPAT_IOSIZE;
    
    if (!options)
    
    goto done;
    
    It only sets the above two options by default and before, it also used to
    set XFSMNT_IDELETE by default.
    
    If options are specified, then
    
    if (!(args->flags & XFSMNT_DMAPI) && !ikeep)
    
    args->flags |= XFSMNT_IDELETE;
    
    is executed later on which is skipped by the "goto done;" above.
    
    The solution is to invert the logic.
    
    SGI-PV: 977771
    SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30590a
    
    Signed-off-by: Niv Sardi <xaiki@sgi.com>
    Signed-off-by: Barry Naujok <bnaujok@sgi.com>
    Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <jeffpc@josefsipek.net>
    Signed-off-by: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Eric Sandeen]

Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
> 
> This will update the following files:
> 
>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   14 +++++++-------
>  fs/xfs/xfs_clnt.h            |    2 +-
>  fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c          |    2 +-
>  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h           |    2 +-
>  fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c          |    4 ++--
>  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> through these commits:
> 
> commit b7405bb65a83e819dd3b21a6d9636c279d9ce79a
> Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@sgi.com>

um, I thought Jeff wrote that patch.

-Eric

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Lachlan McIlroy]

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
>>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
>>
>> This will update the following files:
>>
>>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   14 +++++++-------
>>  fs/xfs/xfs_clnt.h            |    2 +-
>>  fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c          |    2 +-
>>  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h           |    2 +-
>>  fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c          |    4 ++--
>>  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> through these commits:
>>
>> commit b7405bb65a83e819dd3b21a6d9636c279d9ce79a
>> Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@sgi.com>
> 
> um, I thought Jeff wrote that patch.

I'm sure he did too.  Every now and then our ptools -> git merge tools stuff up.

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Eric Sandeen]

Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>>> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
>>>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
>>>
>>> This will update the following files:
>>>
>>>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   14 +++++++-------
>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_clnt.h            |    2 +-
>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c          |    2 +-
>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h           |    2 +-
>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c          |    4 ++--
>>>  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> through these commits:
>>>
>>> commit b7405bb65a83e819dd3b21a6d9636c279d9ce79a
>>> Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@sgi.com>
>> um, I thought Jeff wrote that patch.
> 
> I'm sure he did too.  Every now and then our ptools -> git merge tools stuff up.
> 

IMHO it's worth finding out why; authorship should not be taken lightly.

-Eric

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Mark Goodwin]

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>>>> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
>>>>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
>>>>
>>>> This will update the following files:
>>>>
>>>>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   14 +++++++-------
>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_clnt.h            |    2 +-
>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c          |    2 +-
>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h           |    2 +-
>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c          |    4 ++--
>>>>  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> through these commits:
>>>>
>>>> commit b7405bb65a83e819dd3b21a6d9636c279d9ce79a
>>>> Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@sgi.com>
>>> um, I thought Jeff wrote that patch.
>> I'm sure he did too.  Every now and then our ptools -> git merge tools stuff up.
>>
> 
> IMHO it's worth finding out why; authorship should not be taken lightly.
> 
> -Eric

yes I agree. Niv's take:
Inspected by:  bnaujok,jeffpc
and no Signed-off

Lachlan, would that have confused the scripts?

-- 

  Mark Goodwin                                  markgw@sgi.com
  Engineering Manager for XFS and PCP    Phone: +61-3-99631937
  SGI Australian Software Group           Cell: +61-4-18969583
-------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Lachlan McIlroy]

Mark Goodwin wrote:
> 
> 
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>>> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>>>>> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
>>>>>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
>>>>>
>>>>> This will update the following files:
>>>>>
>>>>>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   14 +++++++-------
>>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_clnt.h            |    2 +-
>>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c          |    2 +-
>>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h           |    2 +-
>>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c          |    4 ++--
>>>>>  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> through these commits:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit b7405bb65a83e819dd3b21a6d9636c279d9ce79a
>>>>> Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@sgi.com>
>>>> um, I thought Jeff wrote that patch.
>>> I'm sure he did too.  Every now and then our ptools -> git merge 
>>> tools stuff up.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO it's worth finding out why; authorship should not be taken lightly.
>>
>> -Eric
> 
> yes I agree. Niv's take:
> Inspected by:  bnaujok,jeffpc
> and no Signed-off
> 
> Lachlan, would that have confused the scripts?

Maybe, I don't know - I didn't write them.  I suppose I could have fixed
the commit message but didn't think at the time it would be messed up.
Niv said he hacked the commit on OSS so that it has the correct author now.
The sooner we move to git the sooner we can get rid of these scripts.

Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.25-rc4

[Timothy Shimmin]

Mark Goodwin wrote:
> 
> 
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>>> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>>>>> Please pull from the for-linus branch:
>>>>>     git pull git://oss.sgi.com:8090/xfs/xfs-2.6.git for-linus
>>>>>
>>>>> This will update the following files:
>>>>>
>>>>>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   14 +++++++-------
>>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_clnt.h            |    2 +-
>>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c          |    2 +-
>>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h           |    2 +-
>>>>>  fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c          |    4 ++--
>>>>>  5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> through these commits:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit b7405bb65a83e819dd3b21a6d9636c279d9ce79a
>>>>> Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@sgi.com>
>>>> um, I thought Jeff wrote that patch.
>>> I'm sure he did too.  Every now and then our ptools -> git merge 
>>> tools stuff up.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO it's worth finding out why; authorship should not be taken lightly.
>>
>> -Eric
> 
> yes I agree. Niv's take:
> Inspected by:  bnaujok,jeffpc
> and no Signed-off
> 
> Lachlan, would that have confused the scripts?
> 
Yes it would.
One needs the signed-off-by's.
 From our sgi internal web page...

==============================================================================
Bad ptool checkin descriptions

Bad checkin descriptions for XFS to ptools are ones which are missing a one
line overall description and ones where the mod has an external author and
there is no Signed-Off-By lines for him/her.

So what you need to have is:...
The first line to be a summary description.  Then if you need further details,
then add a blank line followed by more details in further paragraphs.
Then end with the signed-off-by's.  The script needs signed-off-by to determine
real author and Linus uses the first line as a summary line in his summary code.

The script will look at the ptools mod reviewer list to add in further
signed-off-by's when it gets converted to git.  So you only need 1 signed-off-by
for the external author and if it is just an internal author, you don't need any
signed-off-bys.  (And yes ideally, the reviewers should probably be acked-by...
it is on the TODO list).
==============================================================================

--Tim