[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM2PR21MB0089FDEE0F0939010189EB99CBFD0@DM2PR21MB0089.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 07:33:18 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Andreas Dilger" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@...radead.org]
> The mail is basically unparsable (hint: you can use a sane mailer even with
> exchange servers :)).
That rather depends on how the Exchange servers are configured ... this isn't the
appropriate place to discuss IT issues though.
> Either way we need to get rid of buffer_heads, and another aop that is entirely
> caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't sounds
> unreasonable, but will require a bit more work and has no real short-term
> need.
So your proposal is to remove buffer_heads from ext2?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists