[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: merging the per-bdi writeback patchset
On Tue, Jun 23 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > Last time we discussed this you said you're happy with 2.6.32. I really
> > > want to take a more detailed look and put that on the not so urgent list
> > > because ou didn't seem to rush for .31. So my vote goes for waiting a
> > > bit longer.
> >
> > Yeah, 2.6.32 works for me too, .31 would have been nice though so I
> > don't have to carry it around anymore. But either is fine, if you and
> > Andrew want more time to review this stuff, then lets just settle for
> > .32.
> Yes, I'd really prefer more time. I also expect to come up with some
> more changes in that area. Your patch makes the differences between
> kupdate and pdflush-stye writeback look even more ugly then it already
> is, so I want to see i there's some nicer way to handle it. I also want

Good point, should be easy enough to fold the two together.

> to take a look if it makes sense to distangle data integrity and
> background writeback somehow.

That one is also on more list, would make the code flow a lot cleaner I

Jens Axboe

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-23 13:55    [W:0.039 / U:8.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site