On Thu 17-01-13 16:58:14, Ted Tso wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 06:45:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > When using indirect blocks there is no possibility to have any unwritten > > > extents. So wait for them in ext4_ind_direct_IO() is just bogus. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > Just for the note, this patch conflicts with my patch set of extent > > status tree. I guess your patch series will be applied before my patch > > set. So I will rebase my patch set against the latest kernel. :-) > > Actually, the extent status tree patches are already in my tree, > although I'm still testing and reviewing them. so they haven't been > finalized yet (which is why I haven't sent an e-mail ack). If the > conflict is minor, I'll take care of it. If it's non-trivial, I'll > yell for help. :-) This patch actually isn't in Zheng's latest submission so there shouldn't be any conflict. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
