From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chao Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: reorganize __f2fs_add_link Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:26:25 +0800 Message-ID: <00e401d0c91f$f301b950$d9052bf0$@samsung.com> References: <00f201d0c468$550aabf0$ff2003d0$@samsung.com> <20150723181522.GB23629@jaegeuk-mac02.mot.com> <006501d0c5fb$f6e12dc0$e4a38940$@samsung.com> <20150724155200.GA30823@jaegeuk-mac02.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20150724161117.GA31061@jaegeuk-mac02.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK26b-00077F-Ue for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:27:29 +0000 Received: from mailout4.samsung.com ([203.254.224.34]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1ZK26a-0007YH-8j for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:27:29 +0000 Received: from epcpsbgm1new.samsung.com (epcpsbgm1 [203.254.230.26]) by mailout4.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0NS701L1V10LNV30@mailout4.samsung.com> for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:26:59 +0900 (KST) In-reply-to: <20150724161117.GA31061@jaegeuk-mac02.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> Content-language: zh-cn List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: 'Jaegeuk Kim' Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Hi Jaegeuk, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org] > Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 12:11 AM > To: Chao Yu > Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: reorganize __f2fs_add_link > > Hi Chao, > > BTW, isn't there any problem on update_inode/mark_inode_dirty stuffs? Any problem here? > And, is there a hole to write uncompleted node pages unnecessarily? > Yes, the hole can be filled. > > Let me think about this for a while. > > I think two patches are clean-ups with a little bit big changes. > > Currently, we've touched many parts including extent_cache, so I need to focus > > on stabilizing them first. > > After then, I'd like to dig two clean-up patches. Ok? It's OK. :) Thanks, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------