[v6,19/20] xfs: minimal conversion to errseq_t writeback error reporting
diff mbox

Message ID 20170612122316.13244-24-jlayton@redhat.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Jeff Layton June 12, 2017, 12:23 p.m. UTC
Just set the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag to indicate that we want to use errseq_t
based error reporting. Internal filemap_* calls are left as-is for now.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Darrick J. Wong June 13, 2017, 4:30 a.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:23:15AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Just set the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag to indicate that we want to use errseq_t
> based error reporting. Internal filemap_* calls are left as-is for now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> index 455a575f101d..28d3be187025 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> @@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
>  	.name			= "xfs",
>  	.mount			= xfs_fs_mount,
>  	.kill_sb		= kill_block_super,
> -	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
> +	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_WB_ERRSEQ,

Huh?  Why are there two patches with the same subject line?  And this
same bit of code too?  Or ... 11/13, 11/20?  What's going on here?

<confused>

--D

>  };
>  MODULE_ALIAS_FS("xfs");
>  
> -- 
> 2.13.0
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Jeff Layton June 13, 2017, 10:27 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 21:30 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:23:15AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Just set the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag to indicate that we want to use errseq_t
> > based error reporting. Internal filemap_* calls are left as-is for now.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > index 455a575f101d..28d3be187025 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > @@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
> >  	.name			= "xfs",
> >  	.mount			= xfs_fs_mount,
> >  	.kill_sb		= kill_block_super,
> > -	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
> > +	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_WB_ERRSEQ,
> 
> Huh?  Why are there two patches with the same subject line?  And this
> same bit of code too?  Or ... 11/13, 11/20?  What's going on here?
> 
> <confused>
> 
> --D

Oh my -- sorry about that. I ended up with two different interleaved
patchsets. The /20 series is the one I meant to send.

Just ignore these for now though, as I'll be sending a v7 (at least) to
address HCH's comments.

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
index 455a575f101d..28d3be187025 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
@@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@  static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
 	.name			= "xfs",
 	.mount			= xfs_fs_mount,
 	.kill_sb		= kill_block_super,
-	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
+	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_WB_ERRSEQ,
 };
 MODULE_ALIAS_FS("xfs");