From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve jbd fsync batching Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:55:09 -0800 Message-ID: <20081103125509.41e55529.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20081028201614.GA21600@unused.rdu.redhat.com> <20081103122729.60582692.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081103202442.GA25736@unused.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jbacik@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, rwheeler@redhat.com To: Josef Bacik Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55360 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756295AbYKCUzn (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:55:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081103202442.GA25736@unused.rdu.redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:24:43 -0500 Josef Bacik wrote: > > please fix. > > I see you already pulled this into -mm, would you like me to repost with the > same changelog and the patch updated, or just reply to this with the updated > patch? Thanks, Either works for me at this stage. If it's a replacement then I'll turn it into an incremental so I can see what changed, which takes me about 2.15 seconds. If it had been a large patch or if it had been under test in someone's tree for a while then a replacement patch would be unwelcome. But for a small, fresh patch like this one it's no big deal either way.