From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id qALAAHYQ031557 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:10:18 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id SJaaRT9OSyAsHG1I (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:12:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:12:27 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/32] xfs: remove xfs_flushinval_pages Message-ID: <20121121101227.GG23339@infradead.org> References: <1352721264-3700-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1352721264-3700-6-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20121115162807.GE4019@infradead.org> <20121115205427.GH14281@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121115205427.GH14281@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:54:27AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Yes, I know, but the original patch I had that changed the ranges to > something sensible was causing fsx and other failures all over the > place. It appears that setting the ranges appropriately here exposes > other (worse) bugs, so I decided to leave doing that until I have > time to go on a wild goose chase.... I'm actually very happy with doing it separately, I just really prefer comments to be put in place on why it's done the way it is in case we forget about it again, which history has shown to happen way too often. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs