On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 21:30 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:23:15AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:

quoted

Just set the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag to indicate that we want to use errseq_t
based error reporting. Internal filemap_* calls are left as-is for now.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <redacted>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
index 455a575f101d..28d3be187025 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c

@@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
 	.name			= "xfs",
 	.mount			= xfs_fs_mount,
 	.kill_sb		= kill_block_super,
-	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
+	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_WB_ERRSEQ,

Huh?  Why are there two patches with the same subject line?  And this
same bit of code too?  Or ... 11/13, 11/20?  What's going on here?

<confused>

--D

Oh my -- sorry about that. I ended up with two different interleaved
patchsets. The /20 series is the one I meant to send.

Just ignore these for now though, as I'll be sending a v7 (at least) to
address HCH's comments.
-- 
Jeff Layton [off-list ref]