Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:07:06 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/11] writeback: separate starting of sync vs opportunistic writeback |
| |
On Wed, Sep 16 2009, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 15-09-09 20:16:55, Jens Axboe wrote: > > bdi_start_writeback() is currently split into two paths, one for > > WB_SYNC_NONE and one for WB_SYNC_ALL. Add bdi_sync_writeback() > > for WB_SYNC_ALL writeback and let bdi_start_writeback() handle > > only WB_SYNC_NONE. > > > > Push down the writeback_control allocation and only accept the > > parameters that make sense for each function. This cleans up > > the API considerably. > Nice cleanup! > > > @@ -771,6 +798,8 @@ static long wb_check_old_data_flush(struct bdi_writeback *wb) > > struct wb_writeback_args args = { > > .nr_pages = nr_pages, > > .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_NONE, > > + .for_kupdate = 1, > > + .range_cyclic = 1, > > }; > > > > return wb_writeback(wb, &args); > This chunk should be in patch number 4.
Yeah, I wonder why that snuck into this one...
-- Jens Axboe
| |