From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752938Ab0BWMg6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:36:58 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com ([209.85.220.219]:34206 "EHLO mail-fx0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752509Ab0BWMg4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:36:56 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=nv0RYKoM54Nyrl+7XbIjIOXCuxyFuGtKDn2SMo0xqZuC/iZvPvFqRf3NMx7V0rfjTa p3oYd8DN8zDIizrDbI2McQTpQc3Po0KtF4njwS7SmXlXm2tiCiTKWcv81kU3wgFBjU1M zOe+8Dws4nEjJu/uQA1BLkut4ZZ6zKxmd1k+A= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [git patch] atang tree: fix 2.6.32 SSD performance regression Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:36:04 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31.12-0.1-desktop; KDE/4.3.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Benjamin S." References: <201002222224.35860.bzolnier@gmail.com> <201002231317.01128.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20100223122320.GZ1025@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: <20100223122320.GZ1025@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002231336.04901.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 23 February 2010 01:23:20 pm Jens Axboe wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23 2010, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 February 2010 07:23:24 am Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 22 2010, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > DISCLAIMER: the fact of getting patches merged into atang tree means > > > > that from now on they will be getting updates for changes happening > > > > in atang tree and it should not be treated as an indication regarding > > > > decisions taken by 'upstream' kernel trees > > > > > > > > > > > > Fix 2.6.32 regression bringing back the desired SSD performance. > > > > > > > > [ 'upstream' may want to wait for a proper resolution, for atang tree > > > > performance of big non-ATA boxes owned by a very few people is not > > > > of such a big concern as a major regression on a commodity hardware ] > > > > > > What is the point of this, other than continuing your past history of > > > political tirades? > > > > I worry that you may be reading too much into it -- I don't use Linus' > > tree or linux-next tree any longer so the next kernel I would see fix > > for the issue is most likely 2.6.34 and there is a little point from my > > personal perspective in waiting for such long time.. > > It'll go into 2.6.33, I already prepared an updated for-linus branch > this morning and will send it out later today. Great! I'll just drop my patch during re-base to 2.6.33 then.. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz