From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: why are WB_SYNC_NONE COMMITs being done with FLUSH_SYNC set ? Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:22:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1283196174.2920.4.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <20100819101525.076831ad@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <20100819143710.GA4752@infradead.org> <1282229905.6199.19.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20100819151618.5f769dc9@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <1282246999.7799.66.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20100820132309.GB20126@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Layton , Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: Wu Fengguang Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100820132309.GB20126@localhost> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 21:23 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > Here's a lightly tested patch that turns the check for the two flags > > > into a check for WB_SYNC_NONE. It seems to do the right thing, but I > > > don't have a clear testcase for it. Does this look reasonable? > > > > Looks fine to me. I'll queue it up for the post-2.6.36 merge window... > > Trond, I just created a patch that removes the wbc->nonblocking > definition and all its references except NFS. So there will be merge > dependencies. What should we do? To push both patches to Andrew's -mm > tree? > > Thanks, > Fengguang Do you want to include it as part of your series? Just remember to add an Acked-by: Trond Myklebust Cheers Trond -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html