From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH -V1] ext4: Use new buffer_head flag to check uninit group bitmaps initialization Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:50:35 +0530 Message-ID: <20081126162035.GB28952@skywalker> References: <1227711250-13934-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081126155643.GA8741@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, sandeen@redhat.com, Alex.Zhuravlev@Sun.COM, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Mark Fasheh To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from e28smtp04.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.4]:36311 "EHLO e28smtp04.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753205AbYKZQUp (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:20:45 -0500 Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by e28smtp04.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mAQGKgL8023393 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:50:42 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (d28av03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.65]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mAQGKh0f3567618 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:50:43 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av03.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mAQGKfT8026656 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:20:42 +1100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081126155643.GA8741@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 08:24:10PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > diff --git a/include/linux/jbd2.h b/include/linux/jbd2.h > > index 4932b34..6694561 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/jbd2.h > > +++ b/include/linux/jbd2.h > > @@ -329,6 +329,7 @@ enum jbd_state_bits { > > BH_State, /* Pins most journal_head state */ > > BH_JournalHead, /* Pins bh->b_private and jh->b_bh */ > > BH_Unshadow, /* Dummy bit, for BJ_Shadow wakeup filtering */ > > + BH_JBD_State_bits_End, > > }; > > > > BUFFER_FNS(JBD, jbd) > > Note: this conflicts with a patch by Mark Fasheh which does something > very similar, since OCFS2 also needs some private BH flags. He used > the name BH_JBDPrivateStart, though. > > Originally the plan was going to be that Mark was going to send this > to Linus, but given that we need it as well, I suggest that we drop it > into both the OCFS2 and ext4 trees, and whichever one hits Linus's > tree first will win, and in the other case the magic of git's merge > algorithms should make the right thing happen in the second. (Or the > other team can drop the patch before they merge; either will do the > right thing.) > > For this path, it would mean dropping this hunk and adding Mark's > patch to the ext4 tree. If this makes sense to everyone, Aneesh, you > don't need to send a patch; I can fix up the one you sent easily > enough. Should be fine. -aneesh