Re: [PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with errseq_t (pile #1)

On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 09:25 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:23:46 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > If there are no major objections to this set, I'd like to have > > linux-next start picking it up to get some wider testing. What's the > >

Re: [PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with errseq_t (pile #1)

Hi Jeff, On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:23:46 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote: > > If there are no major objections to this set, I'd like to have > linux-next start picking it up to get some wider testing. What's the > right vehicle for this, given that it touches stuff all over the tree? >

Re: [PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with errseq_t (pile #1)

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 15:34 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > v7: > === > This is the seventh posting of the patchset to revamp the way writeback > errors are tracked and reported. > > The main difference from the v6 posting is the removal of the > FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag. That requires a few other

[PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with errseq_t (pile #1)

v7: === This is the seventh posting of the patchset to revamp the way writeback errors are tracked and reported. The main difference from the v6 posting is the removal of the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag. That requires a few other incremental patches in the writeback code to ensure that both error tracking