Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220428061921.GS1098723@dread.disaster.area>
In-Reply-To: <20220428061921.GS1098723@dread.disaster.area>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:46:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiVgPPczqyLyOg8fmGYc1z+-ngPKkS_bCTwefcLXfp4CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: fixes for 5.18-rc5
To:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:19 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> It's all minor stuff;  a 5.18 build regession fix, a deadlock fix
> and an update to remove redundant fields from the XFS entry in the
> MAINTAINERS file.

Done.

I had to look twice at that patch going "why does it complain about
the xfs flags thing" until I realized it was due to XBF_UNMAPPED being
(1 <<31) and the compiler then seeing explicit negative values being
assigned.

We have a lot of "int flags" in various places, very much not just
xfs, and yeah, we should probably try to clean them up.

But 99% of the time it's just not worth the noise.

And xfs only hit it because you guys literally used up the whole 'int'
for it, normally the compiler won't make a peep about it.

Thanks,
                     Linus