On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:09:55AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 04:59:21PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:42:52PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > > > If so, we might want to think about adding a sanity check to make sure > > > > that by the time we are done with the inode in ext4_evict_inode() > > > > (after we have forced writeback), the ext4_es_tree is empty. Agreed? > > > > > > Today I revise this patch again, and I find extent_status_tree is freed > > > in ext4_clear_inode(). So maybe I don't think that we need to check > > > this tree to be freed in ext4_evict_inode(). This change is in this > > > patch '[RFC][PATCH 4/8 v2] ext4: let ext4 maintain extent status tree'. > > > What's your opinion? > > > > When you say "revise this patch again", does that mean that you would > > like to submit a new set of patch series with changes? Or just that > > you are looking at this patch set again? > > Yes, I prepare to submit a new patch set. Well, note that the merge window is opening *soon*. I haven't yet moved the master branch, so I can update the patch set, but I'm going to need it soon. Can you let me know what changes you need to make? If it is to add new features or new sanity checks, does it make sense to simply make it as new commits to existing patch set? Or are there fundamental problems with the current set, that would be better to fix in the current set of commits? (Or is it just minor stylistic/spelling fixes?) Thanks!! - Ted -- 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
