On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:13:03 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > They also don't eliminate the problematic check above. Regardless of > > whether your or Jens' patches make it in, I think we'll still need > > something like the following (untested) patch. > > > > If this looks ok, I'll flesh out the comments some and "officially" post > > it. Thoughts? > > It's good in itself. However with more_io_wait queue, the first two > chunks will be eliminated. Mind I carry this patch with my patchset? > It makes sense to roll that fix in with the stuff you're doing. If it's going to be a little while before your patches get taken into mainline though, it might not hurt to go ahead and push my patch in as an interim fix. It shouldn't change the behavior of the code in the normal case of a short-lived dirtied_when value, and should guard against major problems when there's a long-lived one. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
