[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88c5406c-5380-436e-7b5d-e5037195c177@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 06:44:04 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
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 06/28/2017 03:54 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> 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.
OK perfect, I'll just ignore the issue then :-)
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists