On Wed, Jun 03 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: >> Here's the 9th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v8: >> >> - Fix a bdi_work on-stack allocation hang. I hope this fixes Ted's >> issue. >> - Get rid of the explicit wait queues, we can just use wake_up_process() >> since it's just for that one task. >> - Add separate "sync_supers" thread that makes sure that the dirty >> super blocks get written. We cannot safely do this from bdi_forker_task(), >> as that risks deadlocking on ->s_umount. Artem, I implemented this >> by doing the wake ups from a timer so that it would be easier for you >> to just deactivate the timer when there are no super blocks. > > I wonder if you would consider to work on top of the latest VFS changes: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git for-next > > For me the problem is that my original patches were created against > the VFS tree, and they do not apply nicely to your tree. So what I've > tried to do - I applied your patches on top of the VFS tree. But they > did not apply cleanly either. I'm currently working on merging them, > but I thought it is better to ask if you already did this. Al, what's the time frame for submitting these vfs changes? I'm assuming 2.6.31 since it's called for-next. If that is the case, then it would be for the best if I rebase on top of those. So, to answer your other ping mail as well, my writeback changes will then be based on top off the vfs tree and then your 0-17 patches. Then we should have a joint base to work from. -- Jens Axboe -- 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
