From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758233AbZFWLwk (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:52:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756614AbZFWLwX (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:52:23 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:55123 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756236AbZFWLwW (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:52:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:52:24 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel , akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: merging the per-bdi writeback patchset Message-ID: <20090623115224.GB31415@kernel.dk> References: <20090623081156.GT31415@kernel.dk> <20090623110933.GA16565@infradead.org> <20090623111209.GZ31415@kernel.dk> <20090623111752.GA23813@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090623111752.GA23813@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 23 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > Last time we discussed this you said you're happy with 2.6.32. I really > > > want to take a more detailed look and put that on the not so urgent list > > > because ou didn't seem to rush for .31. So my vote goes for waiting a > > > bit longer. > > > > Yeah, 2.6.32 works for me too, .31 would have been nice though so I > > don't have to carry it around anymore. But either is fine, if you and > > Andrew want more time to review this stuff, then lets just settle for > > .32. > > Yes, I'd really prefer more time. I also expect to come up with some > more changes in that area. Your patch makes the differences between > kupdate and pdflush-stye writeback look even more ugly then it already > is, so I want to see i there's some nicer way to handle it. I also want Good point, should be easy enough to fold the two together. > to take a look if it makes sense to distangle data integrity and > background writeback somehow. That one is also on more list, would make the code flow a lot cleaner I suspect. -- Jens Axboe