[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4821DF13.2010207@yandex.ru>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 19:55:47 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com>,
Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH take 2 01/28] VFS: introduce writeback_inodes_sb()
Andrew Morton wrote:
> I already added gti-ubifs.patch to the -mm lineup. I haven't yet tried
> pulling, merging or compiling it.
Cool.
> I'd suggest that you just retain this patch in your tree.
>
>> Should I amend the reiser4 patch correspondingly for you?
>
> That would be nice, if you have time, thanks.
I've split the original patch on 3 pieces:
1. VFS: move inode_lock into sync_sb_inodes
2. VFS: export sync_sb_inodes
3. VFS: introduce sync_inodes superblock operation
The first 2 are exactly what UBIFS also needs. The third one is only
needed for Reiser4. The patches are attached.
I am not sure this is the best way to split. The second patch could
just export sync_sb_inodes() without renaming it to
generic_sync_sb_inodes(). But in this case we would have more complex
third patch and more dependencies between reiser4 and ubifs. What is
better?
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
View attachment "0001-VFS-move-inode_lock-into-sync_sb_inodes.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2384 bytes)
View attachment "0002-VFS-export-sync_sb_inodes.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2371 bytes)
View attachment "0003-VFS-introduce-sync_inodes-superblock-operation.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1943 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists