Hello Mike I send the email from my personal mailbox(110950...@qq.com), it may be fail, so I resend this email from my office mailbox again. bellow is the mail context I send previous.
==================================================== I am Tang Junhui(tang.jun...@zte.com.cn), This email comes from my personal mailbox, since I am not in office today. > > From: Tang Junhui <tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hello, Mike > > > > This patch looks good, but has some conflicts with this patch: > > bcache: fix for data collapse after re-attaching an attached device > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?id=73ac105be390c1de42a2f21643c9778a5e002930 > > Could you modify your fix base on the previous patch? > That doesn't make sense. This patch was generated from a current tree > where it's applied on top of that: (It's based on next when it should > really be based on Linus's tree, but it doesn't matter for patch > application because there's no changes in next right now to bcache that > aren't in Linus's tree). Originally, I did not mean merger conflicts, but the code logical conflicts, since the previous patch add a new input parameter set_uuid in bch_cached_dev_attach(), and if set_uuid is not NULL, we use set_uuid as cache set uuid, otherwise, we use dc->sb.set_uuid as the cache set uuid. But now, I read your patch again, and realize that you did not use dc->sb.set_uuid, but use dc->sb.uuid to judge whether the device is a duplicate backend device, so it's OK for me. > May I add your reviewed-by so I can send this (and your fix) upstream? Reviewed-by: Tang Junhui <tang.jun...@zte.com.cn> Thanks Tang Junhui Thanks Tang Junhui
