On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:22:54PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 21:23 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > 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 > > Do you want to include it as part of your series? Just remember to add > an > > Acked-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. Please keep the NFS patches in your tree. I've send a patch to Andrew Morton which removes the other references but keeps the definitions. So that there won't be compile errors when the patches are pushed at different time. 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>