On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > "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). Will do, thanks. NeilBrown
