On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 03:22:37PM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > On 03/05/2010 12:40 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:48:23PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > >> I'm going to push the next VFS pile in about half an hour and get to the > >> write_inode situation. I'm not sure what's the best course here. Note > >> that since you've pulled it, you also have conflicts with what's in the > >> mainline. I can do *another* backmerge (already had one due to gfs2 trivial > >> conflicts) and push the result. Which will suck, since XFS conflicts > >> are not entirely trivial and we'll get a really ugly merge node, with > >> conflict resolution both hidden and not quite obvious. > > > > OK, a backmerge it is. Linus, could you please pull > > git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git/ write_inode > > or suggest a saner way to do that? > > > > I've done backmerges of two points in mainline (trees that got merged > > into mainline, actually) that created conflicts. So at that point it's > > (a) descendent of what's been pulled into NFS tree and (b) merges clean > > with mainline. All for two patches (at commit 716c28c..) ;-/ > > > > It's independent from the previous VFS pull; there's more stuff, hopefully > > for later today, but the worst of the mess should be gone with that one. > Has there been any kind of testing that show this approach does indeed > improve performance? Any hardcore number? http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2010-01/msg00556.html Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
