Folks,
To keep track of what we want to upstream in the 2.6.28-rc
cycle, I've put together a branch called 'xattr-28' with almost all
of
the patches merged. You can see it and pull it from my linux-2.6.git
repository.
View:
http://oss.oracle.com/git/?p=jlbec/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=xattr-28
Pull:
git://oss.oracle.com/git/jlbec/linux-2.6.git xattr-28
The branch contains the following changes:
Joel Becker (5):
ocfs2: Check xattr block signatures properly.
ocfs2: Don't return -EFAULT from a corrupt xattr entry.
ocfs2: Check errors from ocfs2_xattr_update_xattr_search()
ocfs2: Specify appropriate journal access for new xattr buckets.
ocfs2: Don't repeat ocfs2_xattr_block_find()
Tao Ma (1):
ocfs2: Remove unused ocfs2_restore_xattr_block().
Tiger Yang (4):
ocfs2: fix license in xattr
ocfs2: fix function declaration and definition in xattr
ocfs2: remove duplicate definition in xattr
ocfs2: add handler_map array bounds checking
These fixes and cleanups I think are candidates for 2.6.28-rc.
The last patch I'm waiting for is Tao's "ocfs2: Proper hash
collision
handling in xattr bucket division." That's also a bugfix, and I think
a
candidate for 2.6.28-rc. Once we get that nailed down, I think we're
good, and we'll send this stuff along upstream.
Tristan, I'd love it if you could test this branch to make sure
these fixes and cleanups didn't break anything.
Joel
--
"Egotist: a person more interested in himself than in me."
- Ambrose Bierce
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
Joel Becker wrote:> Folks, > To keep track of what we want to upstream in the 2.6.28-rc > cycle, I've put together a branch called 'xattr-28' with almost all of > the patches merged. You can see it and pull it from my linux-2.6.git > repository.Thanks for that. So I can base my work on your branch for my future work. Regards, Tao
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:22:46PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:> Folks, > To keep track of what we want to upstream in the 2.6.28-rc > cycle, I've put together a branch called 'xattr-28' with almost all of > the patches merged. You can see it and pull it from my linux-2.6.git > repository.Joel, Thanks for doing this. I've got the patches all pulled into ocfs2.git now, and they're ready to go. I'm thinking we should try something new this time around. I'd like to get yours and everyone elses opinions on this. I'm thinking to keep fixes that will go upstream in the current release in a 'fixes' branch. For 2.6.28, I started this from your xattr-28 branch, put my signoffs on the patches, and added an mmap fix from Tao which I had already. This will get rebased every time I send fixes upstream. For new features, I started a merge_window branch. This worked really well for us recently imho. Early in the cycle, this might get rebased as large-ish fixes are pushed upstream. By the end of the development cycle though (when fixes are smaller), I suspect it won't have to be rebased as often, or at all. If people wouldn't mind developing against some version of merge_window, it would make getting all this stuff together much easier. As always though, if the choice is between rebasing or doing some PITA merge versus getting a high quality feature going, feel free to push the merge pain onto me :) Right now, merge_window is based on upstream. I'm thinking perhaps we should base it on the current 'fixes' branch, since some of them are on the large-ish side - that would make getting our patches together more smoothly. 'linux-next' and 'ALL' branches would stay the same - a merge of everything we've got, intended to go into the linux-next and -mm trees. Tiger - you had asked me to keep the previous merge_window branch around. It's now in ocfs2.git as 'merge_window_28'. Let me know if I can remove this. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh