On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote: > Hi Chris, Hi Mark, > > I'm currently working on extended inode refs for btrfs send, reading the > version > of fs/btrfs/backref.c in Chris' next branch. Concerning commit > f8728be56e48e4a64ed49a71c66b3e6436869838 ... > > On Mon, August 20, 2012 at 22:29 (+0200), Mark Fasheh wrote: > > Teach tree-log.c about extended inode refs. In particular, we have to adjust > > the behavior of inode ref replay as well as log tree recovery to account for > > the existence of extended refs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <[email protected]> > > --- > > fs/btrfs/backref.c | 68 +++++++++++ > > fs/btrfs/backref.h | 5 + > > fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 316 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > 3 files changed, 337 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > > I had made comments on v3 of this one, which were obviously ignored for v4. I > did not reply to v4, which is the version in "next". Despite that, this commit > has got a > > Reviewed-by: Jan Schmidt <[email protected] > > Chris, can you please remove that tag from the commit mentioned?
Yes, this was clearly a mistake - pretty much neither of us could completely figure out that code ;) I think what happened is the Reviewed-by: from what *used* to be patch 3 got accidentally applied to this one: http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=134502070513822&w=4 They are very obviously different patches though. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
