Re: why are WB_SYNC_NONE COMMITs being done with FLUSH_SYNC set ?

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:22:54PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 21:23 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Here's a lightly tested patch that turns the check for the two flags
into a check for WB_SYNC_NONE. It seems to do the right thing, but I
don't have a clear testcase for it. Does this look reasonable?

Looks fine to me. I'll queue it up for the post-2.6.36 merge window...

Trond, I just created a patch that removes the wbc->nonblocking
definition and all its references except NFS. So there will be merge
dependencies. What should we do?  To push both patches to Andrew's -mm
tree?

Thanks,
Fengguang

Do you want to include it as part of your series? Just remember to add
an

Acked-by: Trond Myklebust <redacted>

Thanks. Please keep the NFS patches in your tree. I've send a patch
to Andrew Morton which removes the other references but keeps the
definitions. So that there won't be compile errors when the patches
are pushed at different time.

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>