From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756717Ab1IBXQu (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2011 19:16:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([66.114.96.30]:35554 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756500Ab1IBXQs (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2011 19:16:48 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1315005407-03d6a5396973d80001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4E6163DE.4030208@fusionio.com> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:16:46 -0600 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kara CC: LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] Small cleanup of bdi_forker_thread() References: <1315004059-9844-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <4E61619E.8040105@fusionio.com> <20110902231212.GH12182@quack.suse.cz> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] Small cleanup of bdi_forker_thread() In-Reply-To: <20110902231212.GH12182@quack.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1315005407 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.180:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.73469 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011-09-02 17:12, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 02-09-11 17:07:10, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 2011-09-02 16:54, Jan Kara wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jens, >>> >>> so after I realized how I underestimated subtlety of bdi_forker_thread() >>> here are two small cleanups to it. The first one puts clearing of BDI_pending >>> in a more natural place, the second patch adds a comment so that fools like >>> me don't try to optimize the function in a wrong place... >> >> Thanks Jan, I've queued it up for 3.1. I've marked it as stable, looks >> like we need it from 2.6.36 and above. > Thanks. But is it really a stable material? It's just a cleanup after > all... I guess it's not strictly stable material, since it's not fixing a problematic issue. -- Jens Axboe