From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] buffered write deadlock fix
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:52:32 -0800
Message-ID: <20070202155232.babe1a52.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20070129081905.23584.97878.sendpatchset@linux.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Filesystems <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@gmail.com>,
	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@in.ibm.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1946176AbXBBXwu@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070129081905.23584.97878.sendpatchset@linux.site>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:31:37 +0100 (CET)
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

> The following set of patches attempt to fix the buffered write
> locking problems (and there are a couple of peripheral patches
> and cleanups there too).
> 
> Patches against 2.6.20-rc6. I was hoping that 2.6.20-rc6-mm2 would
> be an easier diff with the fsaio patches gone, but the readahead
> rewrite clashes badly :(

Well fsaio is restored, but there's now considerable doubt over it due to
the recent febril febrility.

How bad is the clash with the readahead patches?

Clashes with git-block are likely, too.

Bugfixes come first, so I will drop readahead and fsaio and git-block to get
this work completed if needed - please work agaisnt mainline.