From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4984F7F3F for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 06:24:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2D0AC005 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:24:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 9rbAfOGFzGr5iknP (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 04:24:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:24:48 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion Message-ID: <20150108122448.GA18034@infradead.org> References: <1420669543-8093-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1420669543-8093-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com > This patchset passes xfstests and various benchmarks and stress > workloads, so the real question is now: > > What have I missed? > > Comments, thoughts, flames? Why is this done in XFS and not in generic code? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs