"NeilBrown" <neilb@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, 11 Dec 2021, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: >> "NeilBrown" <neilb@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > congestion_wait() in this context is just a sleep - block devices do not >> > in general support congestion signalling any more. >> > >> > The goal here is to wait for any recently written data to get to >> > storage. blkdev_issue_flush() is thought to be too expensive, so >> > replace congestion_wait() with an explicit timeout. >> >> If just replace, the following looks better >> >> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); >> io_schedule_timeout(HZ/10); >> >> Otherwise, >> >> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks. > According to MAINTAINERS, I should send patches for this code to you, > with the implication (I assumed) that you would forwarded them upstream > if acceptable. > But the fact that you have send mt an Acked-By seems to suggest that you > won't be doing that. > To whom should I send this patch with your acked-by? Ah, sorry. I have no repository. So FAT patches goes to linus tree via akpm's help. So "Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" and my Acked-by should work (or I will Cc as reply if need). Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
