Hi Stephen, Sorry, yesterday I missed this email due to my email filter.
On 2018/8/1 23:07, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:09:13 +0800 Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> Xiang has submitted several patches as below to fix compiling error on -next >> tree, could you consider to merge those temporary fixes into -next after >> merging >> staging-next's updates, and reenable CONFIG_EROFS_FS for further integrity >> compiling and test? >> >> staging: erofs: fix superblock/inode flags (MS_RDONLY -> SB_RDONLY, >> S_NOATIME) >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000282.html >> >> staging: erofs: remove RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_{ENTRY, SHIFT} >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000283.html >> >> staging: erofs: update .mount and .remount_sb >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000285.html > > OK, I will apply those tomorrow (actually later today :-)) and and stop > disabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS. OK, thanks for doing that, I and Xiang will keep an eye on compile result. > >> BTW, for this condition that erofs was not covered by some common vfs >> stuff changes in other one's tree, who should take care of those >> missing fixes during coming next merge window? > > It might be easiest for Greg to add the disabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS patch > to the staging tree itself for his first pull request during the merge > window and then send a second pull request (after the vfs and maybe the > Xarray stuff has been merged by Linus) with these patches followed by a > revert of the disabling patch. Thanks for the advice, I think that's a good way to solve the issue, let me send a patch to disable erofs compiling temporarily to avoid conflict during merge window. :) Thanks, >
