[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100727153352.GA5574@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:33:52 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: disallow FS recursion from sb_issue_discard allocation
On Tue, Jul 27 2010 at 9:44am -0400,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:11:56PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Filesystems can call sb_issue_discard on a memory reclaim path
> > (e.g. ext4 calls sb_issue_discard during journal commit).
> >
> > Use GFP_NOFS in sb_issue_discard to avoid recursing back into the FS.
> >
> > Reported-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
>
> Hi Jens,
>
> I never saw an ack from you on this patch. Are you ok with it, and
> have you grabbed it for your tree? Do you want me to include this in
> the ext4 tree, even though it's a patch to include/linux/blkdev.h?
Hi Ted,
Thanks for following up on this. In my experience, Jens is more apt to
pick up a patch if it gets explicitly 'Acked-by' other stake-holders
(especially when a patch is motivated by another subsystem, in this case
the proposed block change addresses a problem unique to fs/ext4).
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists