From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Assign bdi in super_block Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:16:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20090911181600.GA21792@infradead.org> References: <1252669832-13553-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1252669832-13553-3-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20090911180106.GB19598@infradead.org> <20090911181227.GM14984@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, tytso@mit.edu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no To: Jens Axboe Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:52358 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754450AbZIKSP6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:15:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090911181227.GM14984@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:12:27PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > Good question, I was indeed looking for an sb equivalent of that bdi > flag. And now ->s_bdi being set or not is indeed that. Some of our > generated writeback originates at the bdi level though, so we may or may > not have the sb. From a quick look at fs-writeback.c, it looks feasible > though. I'll try. > > Can I take that as an acked-by? Yes.