From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ext4: Remove bogus wait for unwritten extents in ext4_ind_direct_IO Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:02:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20130117230239.GA10127@quack.suse.cz> References: <1357148744-4895-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1357148744-4895-4-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20130104072437.GC31130@gmail.com> <20130117215814.GA7356@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42096 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750814Ab3AQXCl (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:02:41 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130117215814.GA7356@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 > > > > 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. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR