On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 20:32 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote: > >> We already removed 450 lines of core kernel workarounds from Tux3 with > an > >> approach that was literally cut and pasted from one of Dave's > >> emails. Then > >> Dave changed his mind. Now the Tux3 team has been assigned a research > >> project to improve core kernel writeback instead of simply adapting the > >> approach that is already proven to work well enough. That is a rather > >> blatant example of "perfect is the enemy of good enough". Please read > the > >> thread. > > > > That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forking > > interacted with writeback. It's not new, it was one of the major things > > brought up at LSF 14 months ago, so you weren't just assigned this. > > [citation needed] Really? I was there; I remember and it's in my notes of the discussion. However, it's also in Jon's at paragraph 6 if you need to refer to something to refresh your memory. However, when it was spotted isn't the issue; how we add tux3 without a large maintenance burden on writeback is, as I carefully explained in the rest of the email you cut. James -- 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
