From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: why are WB_SYNC_NONE COMMITs being done with FLUSH_SYNC set ? Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:23:09 +0800 Message-ID: <20100820132309.GB20126@localhost> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff Layton , Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1282246999.7799.66.camel-rJ7iovZKK19ZJLDQqaL3InhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > > 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 -- 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