On Tue 17-01-17 08:54:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 16-01-17 22:01:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because > > > sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as > > > sb_getblk > > > __getblk_gfp > > > __getblk_slow > > > grow_buffers > > > grow_dev_page > > > gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_constraint(inode->i_mapping, ~__GFP_FS) | gfp > > > > > > so __GFP_FS is cleared unconditionally and therefore the above commit > > > didn't have any real effect in fact. > > > > > > This patch should not introduce any functional change. The main point > > > of this change is to reduce explicit GFP_NOFS usage inside ext4 code to > > > make the review of the remaining usage easier. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > > > If I'm not mistaken, this patch is not dependent on any of the other > > patches in this series (and the other patches are not dependent on > > this one). Hence, I could take this patch via the ext4 tree, correct? > > Yes, that is correct Hi Ted, this doesn't seem to be in any of the branches [1]. I plan to resend the whole scope nofs series, should I add this to the pile or you are going to route it via your tree? [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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
