Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9

[Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, May 29 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/super.c b/fs/ubifs/super.c
>>>> index 2349e2c..d1ac967 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/ubifs/super.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ubifs/super.c
>>>> @@ -1929,6 +1929,9 @@ static int ubifs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>>> 	err  = bdi_init(&c->bdi);
>>>> 	if (err)
>>>> 		goto out_close;
>>>> +	err = bdi_register(&c->bdi, NULL, "ubifs");
>>>> +	if (err)
>>>> +		goto out_close;
>>> Not quite right, you need to call bdi_destroy() if you have done the
>>> init.
>> Right, bdi_destroy() is already there for long time.
>> I'm confused.
>>
>>> I committed this one this morning:
>>>
>>> http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=commit;h=570a2fe1df85741988ad0ca22aa406744436e281
>> Hmm, it is the same as my patch, but you do
>> +       err = bdi_register(&c->bdi);
>> while I do
>> +	err = bdi_register(&c->bdi, NULL, "ubifs");
> 
> Oops, that's my bad. If you combine the two, we should have a working
> patch :-)
> 
>>> But feel free to commit/submit to the ubifs tree directly, then it'll
>>> disappear from my tree once it is merged.
>> Yeah, I think it can go via my tree. I'd merge it at
>> 2.6.31 window. This change does not depend on your
>> work anyway.
> 
> Right, I'll just carry the fixup patches meanwhile as well, but wont
> upstream them.

Just to make sure I understood you correctly. I assume my original
patch is fine (because there is bdi_destroy()) and merge it to
ubifs tree.


-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)