On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 14:35 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:

On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 08:42:31AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2023-07-05 at 14:58 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:

quoted

v2:
- prepend patches to add missing ctime updates
- add simple_rename_timestamp helper function
- rename ctime accessor functions as inode_get_ctime/inode_set_ctime_*
- drop individual inode_ctime_set_{sec,nsec} helpers

After review by Jan and others, and Jan's ext4 rework, the diff on top
of the series I posted a couple of days ago is below. I don't really
want to spam everyone with another ~100 patch v3 series, but I can if
you think that's best.

Christian, what would you like me to do here?

I picked up the series from the list and folded the fixups you posted
here into the respective fs conversion patches. I hope that helps you
avoid a resend. You should have received a separate "thank you" mail for
all of this.

To each patch that I folded one of the fixlets from below into I added a
git note that records a link to your mail here and the respective patch
hunk from this mail that I folded into the patch. git.kernel.org will
show notes by default. For example,
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git/commit/?h=vfs.ctime&id=8b0e3c2e99004609a16ba145bcbdfdddb78e220e
should show you the note I added. You can also fetch them via
git fetch $remote refs/notes/*:refs/notes/*
(You probably know that ofc but jic.) if you're interested.

Based on v6.5-rc1 as of today.

Many thanks!!! I'll get to work rebasing the multigrain timestamp series
on top of that.

Btw, both b4 and patchwork somehow treat the series in weird was.
IOW, based on the message id of the cover letter I was able to pull most
messages except for:

[07/92] fs: add ctime accessors infrastructure
[08/92] fs: new helper: simple_rename_timestamp
[92/92] fs: rename i_ctime field to __i_ctime

which I pulled in separately. Not sure what the cause of 

this is.

Good to know.

I ended up doing the send in two phases: one for the cover letter and
infrastructure patches that went to everyone, and one for the per-
subsystem patches that went do individual maintainers and lists.

I suspect that screwed up the message IDs somehow. Hopefully I won't
need to do a posting like that again soon, but I'll pay closer attention
to the message id handling next time.

Thanks again!
-- 
Jeff Layton [off-list ref]