lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] vfs part 3 (write_inode mess)
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 03:22:37PM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 12:40 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:48:23PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> >> I'm going to push the next VFS pile in about half an hour and get to the
> >> write_inode situation. I'm not sure what's the best course here. Note
> >> that since you've pulled it, you also have conflicts with what's in the
> >> mainline. I can do *another* backmerge (already had one due to gfs2 trivial
> >> conflicts) and push the result. Which will suck, since XFS conflicts
> >> are not entirely trivial and we'll get a really ugly merge node, with
> >> conflict resolution both hidden and not quite obvious.
> >
> > OK, a backmerge it is. Linus, could you please pull
> > git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git/ write_inode
> > or suggest a saner way to do that?
> >
> > I've done backmerges of two points in mainline (trees that got merged
> > into mainline, actually) that created conflicts. So at that point it's
> > (a) descendent of what's been pulled into NFS tree and (b) merges clean
> > with mainline. All for two patches (at commit 716c28c..) ;-/
> >
> > It's independent from the previous VFS pull; there's more stuff, hopefully
> > for later today, but the worst of the mess should be gone with that one.
> Has there been any kind of testing that show this approach does indeed
> improve performance? Any hardcore number?

http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00556.html

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-09 09:55    [W:0.048 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site