[GIT PULL] ocfs2 fixes for 2.6.36.

[GIT PULL] ocfs2 fixes for 2.6.36.

[Joel Becker]

Linus et al,
	Here are the ocfs2 fixes we have ready for pulling right now.  I
have a bit of a procedural question, though.  I've been busy, so Tao was
kind enough to take the fixes I already had and apply all the new fixes.
He coordinated testing them and getting them ready to go upstream.
That's why I have his git tree in the pull request below.
	I wasn't sure how the signoffs work for this.  He's got signoffs
on the stuff he put together, because it's coming through his tree.  My
naive assumption is that this is the correct way to go.  If you'd like
another arrangement (same branch in my tree, a merge commit somewhere to
stick my SoB on, etc), let me know.
	Otherwise, please pull.

Joel


The following changes since commit 2bfc96a127bc1cc94d26bfaa40159966064f9c8c:
  Linus Torvalds (1):
        Linux 2.6.36-rc3

are available in the git repository at:

  git://oss.oracle.com/git/tma/linux-2.6.git fixes

Jan Kara (2):
      ocfs2: Flush drive's caches on fdatasync
      ocfs2: Fix deadlock when allocating page

Mark Fasheh (6):
      ocfs2: properly set and use inode group alloc hint
      ocfs2: split out inode alloc code from ocfs2_mknod_locked
      ocfs2: use ocfs2_alloc_dinode_update_counts() instead of open coding
      ocfs2: allow return of new inode block location before allocation of the inode
      ocfs2: split out ocfs2_prepare_orphan_dir() into locking and prep functions
      ocfs2: Fix orphan add in ocfs2_create_inode_in_orphan

Sunil Mushran (2):
      ocfs2: Fix metaecc error messages
      ocfs2: Fix incorrect checksum validation error

Tao Ma (2):
      ocfs2: make __ocfs2_page_mkwrite handle file end properly.
      ocfs2: Use the right group in nfs sync check.

Tristan Ye (1):
      Ocfs2: Fix a regression bug from mainline commit(6b933c8e6f1a2f3118082c455eef25f9b1ac7b45).

 fs/ocfs2/alloc.c        |    2 +-
 fs/ocfs2/blockcheck.c   |    4 +-
 fs/ocfs2/file.c         |   15 ++-
 fs/ocfs2/inode.c        |    6 +-
 fs/ocfs2/mmap.c         |    8 +-
 fs/ocfs2/namei.c        |  302 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 fs/ocfs2/refcounttree.c |    5 +-
 fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c     |  219 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 fs/ocfs2/suballoc.h     |   21 ++++
 9 files changed, 475 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] ocfs2 fixes for 2.6.36.

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Joel Becker <boel.becker@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>        Here are the ocfs2 fixes we have ready for pulling right now.  I
> have a bit of a procedural question, though.  I've been busy, so Tao was
> kind enough to take the fixes I already had and apply all the new fixes.
> He coordinated testing them and getting them ready to go upstream.
> That's why I have his git tree in the pull request below.
>        I wasn't sure how the signoffs work for this.  He's got signoffs
> on the stuff he put together, because it's coming through his tree.  My
> naive assumption is that this is the correct way to go.

The sign-off chain should basically stretch from the author to the
committer - so a good sign-off chain is one where the first sign-off
matches the author of the commit, and the last sign-off matches the
committer, and the ones in the middle are obviously the path it took
from one to the other.

However, Tao has *NOT* added sign-offs to the patches he's taken. I
didn't look at all of them, but the first few commits are all authored
(and signed off on - so far so good) by Mark Fasheh, but there is no
sign-off for Tao. So the sign-off chain is clearly not complete.

                      Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] ocfs2 fixes for 2.6.36.

[Tao Ma]

Hi Linus,

On 09/08/2010 10:19 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Joel Becker<boel.becker@oracle.com>  wrote:
>>
>>         Here are the ocfs2 fixes we have ready for pulling right now.  I
>> have a bit of a procedural question, though.  I've been busy, so Tao was
>> kind enough to take the fixes I already had and apply all the new fixes.
>> He coordinated testing them and getting them ready to go upstream.
>> That's why I have his git tree in the pull request below.
>>         I wasn't sure how the signoffs work for this.  He's got signoffs
>> on the stuff he put together, because it's coming through his tree.  My
>> naive assumption is that this is the correct way to go.
>
> The sign-off chain should basically stretch from the author to the
> committer - so a good sign-off chain is one where the first sign-off
> matches the author of the commit, and the last sign-off matches the
> committer, and the ones in the middle are obviously the path it took
> from one to the other.
>
> However, Tao has *NOT* added sign-offs to the patches he's taken. I
> didn't look at all of them, but the first few commits are all authored
> (and signed off on - so far so good) by Mark Fasheh, but there is no
> sign-off for Tao. So the sign-off chain is clearly not complete.
sorry for the trouble. This is the first time for me to collect patches 
for a mainline upstream.
So I have added my sign-off to all the patches whose author isn't me to 
indicate that I am the committer. Hope it works. please pull
git://oss.oracle.com/git/tma/linux-2.6.git fixes


REgards,
Tao