Re: [PATCH 10/10] swapext: make sure that we don't swap unwritten extents unless they're part of a rt extent(??)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] swapext: make sure that we don't swap unwritten extents unless they're part of a rt extent(??)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 23:11:26 -0700
Cc: zlang@xxxxxxxxxx, fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, guan@xxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <171867145451.793463.2794238931520323458.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs>
References: <171867145284.793463.16426642605476089750.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <171867145451.793463.2794238931520323458.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs>

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 05:49:21PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>

Can you add a commit message explaining what this test does and why
you wrote it?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 10/10] swapext: make sure that we don't swap unwritten extents unless they're part of a rt extent(??)
  - From: Darrick J. Wong

References:
- [PATCHSET v30.6 2/6] fstests: atomic file updates
  - From: Darrick J. Wong
- [PATCH 10/10] swapext: make sure that we don't swap unwritten extents unless they're part of a rt extent(??)
  - From: Darrick J. Wong

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 09/10] xfs/206: screen out exchange-range from golden output
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 01/11] generic: test recovery of extended attribute updates
Previous by thread: [PATCH 10/10] swapext: make sure that we don't swap unwritten extents unless they're part of a rt extent(??)
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 10/10] swapext: make sure that we don't swap unwritten extents unless they're part of a rt extent(??)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Filesystems Development] [Linux NFS] [Linux NILFS] [Linux USB Devel] [Linux Audio Users] [Yosemite News] [Linux Kernel] [Linux SCSI]

Powered by Linux