From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAEF8C433E1 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:04:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C132C2078C for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:04:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728042AbgFJKEE (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:04:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54108 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727946AbgFJKEE (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:04:04 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F2DAC51; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack2.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5A2DA1E1283; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:04:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:04:02 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Ted Tso , Martijn Coenen , tj@kernel.org, Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] writeback: Lazytime handling fix and cleanups Message-ID: <20200610100402.GA25104@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20200601091202.31302-1-jack@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200601091202.31302-1-jack@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 01-06-20 11:18:54, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > this patch series fixes an issue with handling of lazy inode timestamp > writeback which could result in missed background writeback of an inode > or missed update of inode timestamps during sync(2). It also somewhat > simplifies the writeback code handling of lazy inode timestamp updates. > Review is welcome! OK, nobody has replied to this and I have positive feedback from Martijn so I guess I'll pickup the patches to my tree so that they get some testing in linux-next and push them to Linus sometime next week. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR