On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 17:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Sunday, June 22, 2014 7:43:07 AM PDT, James Bottomley wrote: > > 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: > >>> 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. > > You have such a wonderfully charismatic way of providing citations. Well, it's factual, as I presume you have now discovered. > > 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. > > You are doing a fine job of proving to the world that LKML has become > a toxic waste dump. CC to LKML removed for obvious reasons. Please don't drop the Mailing list cc; that's where the debate actually happens and where others can see it. > Please let this be the end of the unhelpful rhetoric that does none of us any > good, especially you. Telling you factually what the issue is isn't rhetoric. Your Ad Hominem reply, of course, is rhetoric but I don't need to bother engaging with your rhetorical technique because I'm still arguing the facts: proving that page forking can be integrated into writeback without adding to the maintenance burden is a big issue for tux3. We're all still waiting for the patches you were going to produce showing how this could be done. 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
