On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:02:39AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> 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.
Hi Ted,
Sorry for the delay reply because of travelling. As Jan said above, I
have dropped the patch of unwritten extent conversion from the patch set
of extent status tree. So there isn't any conflict.
Thanks,
- Zheng
--
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
