| Message ID | 20170612122316.13244-24-jlayton@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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.
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");
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(-)