[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111103120257.c0c13ebacc8d245ca75edbf1@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:02:57 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc: Prasad Joshi <prasadjoshi.linux@...il.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the logfs tree with Linus' tree
Hi Jörn,
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:00:46 +0100 Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 November 2011 14:10:00 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the logfs tree got a conflict in
> > fs/logfs/file.c between commit 02c24a82187d ("fs: push i_mutex and
> > filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers") from Linus' tree
> > and commit 39da12ef4bbe ("logfs: take write mutex lock during fsync and
> > sync") from the logfs tree.
> >
> > I have no idea what needs to be done here. I fixed it like below to make
> > it build, but a better fix is needed.
>
> From a code perspective your fix below is correct, to the best of my
> judgement. I'm less sure what to do from a git perspective.
> Explicitly tell Linus about it in the logfs pull request?
I was concered about the locking order (or if both locks were needed at
all). And, yes, tell Linus.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists