Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:36:00 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: "Schumaker, Bryan" <Bryan.Schumaker@netapp.com>,
        "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [nfs:devel 46/51] fs/nfs/write.c:1592:5: error: redefinition of
 'nfs_commit_inode'
Message-ID: <20120731143600.GA21084@localhost>
References: <4FA345DA4F4AE44899BD2B03EEEC2FA934BE82@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
 <5017D3FC.9010905@netapp.com>
 <1343739299.519.1.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
 <5017D824.209@netapp.com>
 <5017DDDB.6060500@netapp.com>
 <1343741622.519.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
 <5017E13F.4030909@netapp.com>
 <1343743122.519.4.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
 <20120731141007.GA20369@localhost>
 <1343744900.519.13.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <1343744900.519.13.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:28:21PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 22:10 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > Easy enough, the patch that fixes it is the last one in the series that I sent in yesterday.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand. That is the patch series that Fengguang was testing
> > > afaik. His tests were on 
> > > 
> > > tree:   git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/trondmy/linux-nfs.git devel
> > > head:   5c13c9e1c15ee2ca9ab2b953224001af53d9be09
> > > 
> > > which includes your patch series from yesterday, no?
> > 
> > Trond, I typically do commit-by-commit tests and will complain if
> > *any* point of the tree is not bisect-able. A fix at the HEAD won't
> > stop the email notification for a defect in the middle point..
> > 
> > On the other hand, I do maintain a list of non-rebaseable
> > tree/branches, on which the HEAD commit will be tested first, and only
> > if any problems are found, go back to find out the first bad commit.
> > 
> > If you prefer the latter behavior, I can add your tree or any branch
> > of it to the non-rebaseable list.
> 
> Ah... I see now... So you are saying that the end result is indeed
> correct, but the bisection fails...

Sorry for the confusions!

> The 'devel' tree is usually a mixture of rebaseable and non-rebaseable:
> anything that is already been committed to the nfs-for-next branch is
> non-rebaseable, while the rest usually is...

Got it. I'll mark 'nfs-for-next' and 'devel' as non-rebaseable, and do
thorough bisect tests on the other branches.

Thanks,
Fengguang