> > Here's a lightly tested patch that turns the check for the two flags > > into a check for WB_SYNC_NONE. It seems to do the right thing, but I > > don't have a clear testcase for it. Does this look reasonable? > > Looks fine to me. I'll queue it up for the post-2.6.36 merge window... Trond, I just created a patch that removes the wbc->nonblocking definition and all its references except NFS. So there will be merge dependencies. What should we do? To push both patches to Andrew's -mm tree? Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>