From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ext4: Remove bogus wait for unwritten extents in ext4_ind_direct_IO Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:58:14 -0500 Message-ID: <20130117215814.GA7356@thunk.org> References: <1357148744-4895-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1357148744-4895-4-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20130104072437.GC31130@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Jan Kara , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:44071 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754033Ab3AQV6S (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:58:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130104072437.GC31130@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 > > 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. :-) - Ted