From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:23:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140314012300.GA8282@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2r5mvtLZYt=L9HHYOYGBB-kZNXrPiMQL-agzD_VRGCW4vMcw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:33:02PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs(). This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
>
> Is there a case where a file system, not mounted read-only,
> would want to skip the syncfs on remount? I don't know
> of any particular reason to do a syncfs on remount unless
> caching behavior is changing (or moving to read-only mount),
> but if as you say it is documented and guaranteed...
If the file system is mounted read-write, and it is transitioning to
read-only, i.e. "mount -o remount,ro /" then you do want to write out
all dirty data before you transition it to be read-only (otherwise you
would lose data).
It is my belief that this is the _only_ data integrity issue which is
implied by remount (and this is more about not losing work done by
previous system calls).
The background reason for this commit is that a user complained on the
ext4 list that he is using containers in a virtualization environment,
and due to the init scripts which the user doesn't want to change, it
is causing gazillions of no-op remounts, and this is causing ext4 (and
xfs) to do send CACHE FLUSH commands because it is required by the
syncfs(2) system call, which also calls sync_filesystem. These CACHE
FLUSH commands are unneeded for anything, especially for these no-op
remounts, and so I want them to go away for remounts, but they should
still be there in response to syncfs(2) requests.
Cheers,
- Ted
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu,
"linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
samba-technical <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
Adrian Hunte
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:23:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140314012300.GA8282@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2r5mvtLZYt=L9HHYOYGBB-kZNXrPiMQL-agzD_VRGCW4vMcw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:33:02PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs(). This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
>
> Is there a case where a file system, not mounted read-only,
> would want to skip the syncfs on remount? I don't know
> of any particular reason to do a syncfs on remount unless
> caching behavior is changing (or moving to read-only mount),
> but if as you say it is documented and guaranteed...
If the file system is mounted read-write, and it is transitioning to
read-only, i.e. "mount -o remount,ro /" then you do want to write out
all dirty data before you transition it to be read-only (otherwise you
would lose data).
It is my belief that this is the _only_ data integrity issue which is
implied by remount (and this is more about not losing work done by
previous system calls).
The background reason for this commit is that a user complained on the
ext4 list that he is using containers in a virtualization environment,
and due to the init scripts which the user doesn't want to change, it
is causing gazillions of no-op remounts, and this is causing ext4 (and
xfs) to do send CACHE FLUSH commands because it is required by the
syncfs(2) system call, which also calls sync_filesystem. These CACHE
FLUSH commands are unneeded for anything, especially for these no-op
remounts, and so I want them to go away for remounts, but they should
still be there in response to syncfs(2) requests.
Cheers,
- Ted
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu,
"linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
samba-technical <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
Adrian
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:23:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140314012300.GA8282@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2r5mvtLZYt=L9HHYOYGBB-kZNXrPiMQL-agzD_VRGCW4vMcw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:33:02PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs(). This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
>
> Is there a case where a file system, not mounted read-only,
> would want to skip the syncfs on remount? I don't know
> of any particular reason to do a syncfs on remount unless
> caching behavior is changing (or moving to read-only mount),
> but if as you say it is documented and guaranteed...
If the file system is mounted read-write, and it is transitioning to
read-only, i.e. "mount -o remount,ro /" then you do want to write out
all dirty data before you transition it to be read-only (otherwise you
would lose data).
It is my belief that this is the _only_ data integrity issue which is
implied by remount (and this is more about not losing work done by
previous system calls).
The background reason for this commit is that a user complained on the
ext4 list that he is using containers in a virtualization environment,
and due to the init scripts which the user doesn't want to change, it
is causing gazillions of no-op remounts, and this is causing ext4 (and
xfs) to do send CACHE FLUSH commands because it is required by the
syncfs(2) system call, which also calls sync_filesystem. These CACHE
FLUSH commands are unneeded for anything, especially for these no-op
remounts, and so I want them to go away for remounts, but they should
still be there in response to syncfs(2) requests.
Cheers,
- Ted
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu,
"linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
samba-technical <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:23:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140314012300.GA8282@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2r5mvtLZYt=L9HHYOYGBB-kZNXrPiMQL-agzD_VRGCW4vMcw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:33:02PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs(). This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
>
> Is there a case where a file system, not mounted read-only,
> would want to skip the syncfs on remount? I don't know
> of any particular reason to do a syncfs on remount unless
> caching behavior is changing (or moving to read-only mount),
> but if as you say it is documented and guaranteed...
If the file system is mounted read-write, and it is transitioning to
read-only, i.e. "mount -o remount,ro /" then you do want to write out
all dirty data before you transition it to be read-only (otherwise you
would lose data).
It is my belief that this is the _only_ data integrity issue which is
implied by remount (and this is more about not losing work done by
previous system calls).
The background reason for this commit is that a user complained on the
ext4 list that he is using containers in a virtualization environment,
and due to the init scripts which the user doesn't want to change, it
is causing gazillions of no-op remounts, and this is causing ext4 (and
xfs) to do send CACHE FLUSH commands because it is required by the
syncfs(2) system call, which also calls sync_filesystem. These CACHE
FLUSH commands are unneeded for anything, especially for these no-op
remounts, and so I want them to go away for remounts, but they should
still be there in response to syncfs(2) requests.
Cheers,
- Ted
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu,
"linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
samba-technical <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:23:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140314012300.GA8282@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2r5mvtLZYt=L9HHYOYGBB-kZNXrPiMQL-agzD_VRGCW4vMcw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:33:02PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs(). This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
>
> Is there a case where a file system, not mounted read-only,
> would want to skip the syncfs on remount? I don't know
> of any particular reason to do a syncfs on remount unless
> caching behavior is changing (or moving to read-only mount),
> but if as you say it is documented and guaranteed...
If the file system is mounted read-write, and it is transitioning to
read-only, i.e. "mount -o remount,ro /" then you do want to write out
all dirty data before you transition it to be read-only (otherwise you
would lose data).
It is my belief that this is the _only_ data integrity issue which is
implied by remount (and this is more about not losing work done by
previous system calls).
The background reason for this commit is that a user complained on the
ext4 list that he is using containers in a virtualization environment,
and due to the init scripts which the user doesn't want to change, it
is causing gazillions of no-op remounts, and this is causing ext4 (and
xfs) to do send CACHE FLUSH commands because it is required by the
syncfs(2) system call, which also calls sync_filesystem. These CACHE
FLUSH commands are unneeded for anything, especially for these no-op
remounts, and so I want them to go away for remounts, but they should
still be there in response to syncfs(2) requests.
Cheers,
- Ted
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>,
codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu,
"linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@thunk.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
samba-technical <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
Adrian
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs()
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:23:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140314012300.GA8282@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2r5mvtLZYt=L9HHYOYGBB-kZNXrPiMQL-agzD_VRGCW4vMcw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 07:33:02PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Previously, the no-op "mount -o mount /dev/xxx" operation when the
> > file system is already mounted read-write causes an implied,
> > unconditional syncfs(). This seems pretty stupid, and it's certainly
> > documented or guaraunteed to do this, nor is it particularly useful,
> > except in the case where the file system was mounted rw and is getting
> > remounted read-only.
>
> Is there a case where a file system, not mounted read-only,
> would want to skip the syncfs on remount? I don't know
> of any particular reason to do a syncfs on remount unless
> caching behavior is changing (or moving to read-only mount),
> but if as you say it is documented and guaranteed...
If the file system is mounted read-write, and it is transitioning to
read-only, i.e. "mount -o remount,ro /" then you do want to write out
all dirty data before you transition it to be read-only (otherwise you
would lose data).
It is my belief that this is the _only_ data integrity issue which is
implied by remount (and this is more about not losing work done by
previous system calls).
The background reason for this commit is that a user complained on the
ext4 list that he is using containers in a virtualization environment,
and due to the init scripts which the user doesn't want to change, it
is causing gazillions of no-op remounts, and this is causing ext4 (and
xfs) to do send CACHE FLUSH commands because it is required by the
syncfs(2) system call, which also calls sync_filesystem. These CACHE
FLUSH commands are unneeded for anything, especially for these no-op
remounts, and so I want them to go away for remounts, but they should
still be there in response to syncfs(2) requests.
Cheers,
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-14 1:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-05 14:13 Extremely slow remounts with concurrent I/O Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-06 13:56 ` [PATCH, RFC] jbd2: don't write non-commit blocks synchronously Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-06 17:28 ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-06 18:27 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-06 18:45 ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-06 18:37 ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-08 16:08 ` [PATCH, RFC] fs: only call sync_filesystem() when remounting read-only Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-10 11:45 ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-10 14:41 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-10 12:15 ` Lucas Nussbaum
2014-03-13 0:36 ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-13 1:16 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 3:14 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 6:04 ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-13 12:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 7:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-03-13 14:20 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] fs: push sync_filesystem() down to the file system's remount_fs() Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:22 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:20 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:20 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:20 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:20 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 14:50 ` Anders Larsen
2014-03-13 16:23 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:23 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-13 16:28 ` [Cluster-devel] " Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28 ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28 ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28 ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28 ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28 ` [Cluster-devel] " Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 16:28 ` Steven Whitehouse
2014-03-13 23:15 ` [Cluster-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 23:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14 12:13 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 12:13 ` Jan Kara
2014-03-14 0:33 ` Steve French
2014-03-14 0:33 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Steve French
2014-03-14 0:33 ` Steve French
2014-03-14 0:33 ` Steve French
2014-03-14 0:33 ` Steve French
2014-03-14 0:33 ` Steve French
2014-03-14 1:23 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2014-03-14 1:23 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14 1:23 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14 1:23 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14 1:23 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-14 1:23 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-08 16:08 ` [PATCH, RFC] fs: only call sync_filesystem() when remounting read-only Theodore Ts'o
2014-03-13 7:19 ` Extremely slow remounts with concurrent I/O Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140314012300.GA8282@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.