Re: [PATCH 3/5] ext4: Remove bogus wait for unwritten extents in ext4_ind_direct_IO

[Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:02:39AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 17-01-13 16:58:14, Ted Tso wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 06:45:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > When using indirect blocks there is no possibility to have any unwritten
> > > > extents. So wait for them in ext4_ind_direct_IO() is just bogus.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > 
> > > Hi Jan,
> > > 
> > > Just for the note, this patch conflicts with my patch set of extent
> > > status tree.  I guess your patch series will be applied before my patch
> > > set.  So I will rebase my patch set against the latest kernel. :-)
> > 
> > Actually, the extent status tree patches are already in my tree,
> > although I'm still testing and reviewing them. so they haven't been
> > finalized yet (which is why I haven't sent an e-mail ack).  If the
> > conflict is minor, I'll take care of it.  If it's non-trivial, I'll
> > yell for help.  :-)
>   This patch actually isn't in Zheng's latest submission so there shouldn't
> be any conflict.

Hi Ted,

Sorry for the delay reply because of travelling.  As Jan said above, I
have dropped the patch of unwritten extent conversion from the patch set
of extent status tree.  So there isn't any conflict.

Thanks,
                                                - Zheng