On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Andreas Rohner wrote: > If you are interested I could clean up my code and submit a patch set > for review. I am sure there are lots of things, that need to be changed, > but maybe it can give you some ideas... > > It would also be possible, to improve timestamp by allowing the cleaner > to abort if there is nothing to gain from cleaning a particular segment. > Instead it could just updated the su_lastmod in the SUFILE without doing > anything else. This would be a fairly simple change. I could provide a > patch for that too. > I think that it is very desirable to share patches for the review on early stages because it is possible to achieve a valuable results by means of open and continuos discussion. So, you are welcome to share your vision and your patches. As I remember, I had made many remarks about your approach and about your code last time. So, I hope that you rework your approach significantly. > Regards, > Andreas Rohner > > [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ued8g5xaktnpbq/replay_parallel_ssd_line.pdf To be honest, I completely misunderstand this diagram. It is hard to understand it without additional description, from my point of view. > [2] http://iotta.snia.org/historical_section?tracetype_id=2 > [3] > https://www.dropbox.com/s/nwfixlzzzvf93v2/replay_parallel_stats_write.pdf Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
