Guys, we're really getting behind with this and I'm sitting on a large number of rather old patches. So can we please get down, review this code and make a decision one way or the other? Here's the list of 24 patches I shall send out, along with a few notes: ocfs2-set-filesytem-read-only-when-ocfs2_delete_entry-failed.patch ocfs2-trusted-xattr-missing-cap_sys_admin-check.patch - breaks existing userspace? ocfs2-flush-inode-data-to-disk-and-free-inode-when-i_count-becomes-zero.patch add-errors=continue.patch acknowledge-return-value-of-ocfs2_error.patch clear-the-rest-of-the-buffers-on-error.patch ocfs2-fix-a-tiny-case-that-inode-can-not-removed.patch ocfs2-add-ip_alloc_sem-in-direct-io-to-protect-allocation-changes.patch ocfs2-extend-transaction-for-ocfs2_remove_rightmost_path-and-ocfs2_update_edge_lengths-before-to-avoid-inconsistency-between-inode-and-et.patch ocfs2-do-not-set-fs-read-only-if-rec-is-empty-while-committing-truncate.patch extend-enough-credits-for-freeing-one-truncate-record-while-replaying-truncate-records.patch ocfs2-optimize-error-handling-in-dlm_request_join.patch resubmit-bug_onlockres-l_level-=-dlm_lock_ex-checkpointed-tripped-in-ocfs2_ci_checkpointed.patch - Joseph Qi had a suggestion resubmit-ocfs2_iop_set-get_acl-called-from-the-vfs-so-take-inode-lock-v2second-version.patch ocfs2-fix-race-between-crashed-dio-and-rm.patch ocfs2-use-64bit-variables-to-track-heartbeat-time.patch ocfs2-call-ocfs2_journal_access_di-before-ocfs2_journal_dirty-in-ocfs2_write_end_nolock.patch - Zhangguanghui <zhang.guanghui at h3c.com> raised an issue ocfs2-avoid-access-invalid-address-when-read-o2dlm-debug-messages.patch - Mark has issues ocfs2-neaten-do_error-ocfs2_error-and-ocfs2_abort.patch ocfs2-export-ocfs2_kset-for-online-file-check.patch ocfs2-sysfile-interfaces-for-online-file-check.patch ocfs2-create-remove-sysfile-for-online-file-check.patch ocfs2-check-fix-inode-block-for-online-file-check.patch ocfs2-add-feature-document-for-online-file-check.patch Thanks.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:39:55 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:> Guys, we're really getting behind with this and I'm sitting on a large > number of rather old patches. > > So can we please get down, review this code and make a decision one way > or the other? > > Here's the list of 24 patches I shall send out, along with a few notes:oops, I forgot to send the patches. Sorry for keeping you all in suspense ;)