| Message ID | 20190429220934.10415-1-agruenba@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | iomap and gfs2 fixes | expand |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:09:29AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Here's another update of this patch queue, hopefully with all wrinkles > ironed out now. > > Darrick, I think Linus would be unhappy seeing the first four patches in > the gfs2 tree; could you put them into the xfs tree instead like we did > some time ago already? Sure. When I'm done reviewing them I'll put them in the iomap tree, though, since we now have a separate one. :) --D > Thanks, > Andreas > > Andreas Gruenbacher (4): > fs: Turn __generic_write_end into a void function > iomap: Fix use-after-free error in page_done callback > iomap: Add a page_prepare callback > gfs2: Fix iomap write page reclaim deadlock > > Christoph Hellwig (1): > iomap: Clean up __generic_write_end calling > > fs/buffer.c | 8 ++-- > fs/gfs2/aops.c | 14 ++++-- > fs/gfs2/bmap.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > fs/internal.h | 2 +- > fs/iomap.c | 55 ++++++++++++++--------- > include/linux/iomap.h | 22 ++++++--- > 6 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.20.1 >
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 07:50:28PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:09:29AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > Here's another update of this patch queue, hopefully with all wrinkles > > ironed out now. > > > > Darrick, I think Linus would be unhappy seeing the first four patches in > > the gfs2 tree; could you put them into the xfs tree instead like we did > > some time ago already? > > Sure. When I'm done reviewing them I'll put them in the iomap tree, > though, since we now have a separate one. :) I'd just keep the iomap stuff in the xfs tree as a separate set of branches and merge them into the XFS for-next when composing it. That way it still gets plenty of test coverage from all the XFS devs and linux next without anyone having to think about. You really only need to send separate pull requests for the iomap and XFS branches - IMO, there's no really need to have a complete new tree for it... Cheers, Dave.
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 07:21:46AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 07:50:28PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:09:29AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > Here's another update of this patch queue, hopefully with all wrinkles > > > ironed out now. > > > > > > Darrick, I think Linus would be unhappy seeing the first four patches in > > > the gfs2 tree; could you put them into the xfs tree instead like we did > > > some time ago already? > > > > Sure. When I'm done reviewing them I'll put them in the iomap tree, > > though, since we now have a separate one. :) > > I'd just keep the iomap stuff in the xfs tree as a separate set of > branches and merge them into the XFS for-next when composing it. > That way it still gets plenty of test coverage from all the XFS > devs and linux next without anyone having to think about. > > You really only need to send separate pull requests for the iomap > and XFS branches - IMO, there's no really need to have a complete > new tree for it... <nod> That was totally a braino on my part -- I put the patches in the iomap *branch* since now we have a separate *branch*. :) (and just merged that branch into for-next) --D > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com