On Tue, Jul 27 2010 at 9:44am -0400, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:11:56PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > Filesystems can call sb_issue_discard on a memory reclaim path > > (e.g. ext4 calls sb_issue_discard during journal commit). > > > > Use GFP_NOFS in sb_issue_discard to avoid recursing back into the FS. > > > > Reported-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Hi Jens, > > I never saw an ack from you on this patch. Are you ok with it, and > have you grabbed it for your tree? Do you want me to include this in > the ext4 tree, even though it's a patch to include/linux/blkdev.h? Hi Ted, Thanks for following up on this. In my experience, Jens is more apt to pick up a patch if it gets explicitly 'Acked-by' other stake-holders (especially when a patch is motivated by another subsystem, in this case the proposed block change addresses a problem unique to fs/ext4). Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
