[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE56AA5.4030705@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:04:21 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback
On 11/18/10 11:10 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:55:18 -0600 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>>> Can we just delete writeback_inodes_sb_nr_if_idle() and
>>> writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle()? The changelog for 17bd55d037a02 is
>>> pretty handwavy - do we know that deleting these things would make a
>>> jot of difference?
>>
>> Really? I thought it was pretty decent ;)
>>
>> Anyway, xfstests 204, "Test out ENOSPC flushing on small filesystems."
>> shows the problem clearly, IIRC. I should have included that in the
>> changelog, I suppose, sorry.
>
> Your email didn't really impart any information :(
>
> I suppose I could accidentally delete those nasty little functions in a
> drivers/parport patch then wait and see if anyone notices.
>
Um, ok, then, to answer the question directly :
No, please don't delete those functions, it will break ENOSPC handling
in ext4 as shown by xfstests regression test #204 ...
-Eric
--
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