From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] writeback: Move requeueing when I_SYNC set to
 writeback_sb_inodes()
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:38:20 -0400
Message-ID: <20120430143820.GB10964@infradead.org>
References: <1332284191-21076-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <1332284191-21076-3-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:57073
	"EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753439Ab2D3OiW (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:38:22 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1332284191-21076-3-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:56:26PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> When writeback_single_inode() is called on inode which has I_SYNC already
> set while doing WB_SYNC_NONE, inode is moved to b_more_io list. However
> this makes sense only if the caller is flusher thread. For other callers of
> writeback_single_inode() it doesn't really make sense and may be even wrong
> - flusher thread may be doing WB_SYNC_ALL writeback in parallel.
> 
> So we move requeueing from writeback_single_inode() to writeback_sb_inodes().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Looks good,

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>