From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:02:36 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jens Axboe , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS Dev Mailing List , Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] f2fs for 4.8 Message-ID: <20160727210236.GA73525@jaegeuk> References: <20160727040800.GA69756@jaegeuk> <86e4eb4c-3cb8-8e0f-ebb4-48cdf4dea8e8@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:46:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > Looks OK to me, though I think you could have dropped the ->bi_rw > > assignment in f2fs_submit_page_bio(): > > > > bio->bi_rw = fio->op_flags; > > bio_set_op_attrs(bio, fio->op, fio->op_flags); > > > > __submit_bio(fio->sbi, bio, fio->type); > > Ahh, yes. I'll add a patch to drop that line, unless you just want to > do it yourself (or Jaegeuk Kim wants to do it in the f2fs tree). Actually, I was writing an email to point that out. :) Thanks to Jens for the patch for this. Anyway, the changes look good to me as well. > Jaegeuk, I'd still really want confirmation that it all actually > works. The extra line should be harmless, even if Jens is right that > it is ugly and wrong. It might be worth testing with that line > removed. I've confirmed that there is no problem; I've checked a round of xfstests and fsstress test. Thank you for resolving the conflicts. Thanks,