[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1498643640.4644.1.camel@poochiereds.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 05:54:00 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the file-locks
tree
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 20:01 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 07:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > include/linux/fs.h
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 3f64df8a51ce ("fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting")
> >
> > from the file-locks tree and commit:
> >
> > c75b1d9421f8 ("fs: add fcntl() interface for setting/getting write life time hints")
> >
> > from the block tree.
>
> Looks like we stole the same hole! Let's just merge it like this, then
> post merge I (or Jeff) can move the member to a better location.
>
(cc'ing Al since he might pick these up...)
Indeed!
I'll plan to move f_wb_err to the end of the struct.
I have some later patches that add a second 32-bit errseq_t field to
struct file for tracking metadata writeback errors. That would make them
adjacent to one another which at least looks a little cleaner.
Cheers,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists