From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757577AbZFWLR7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:17:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752995AbZFWLRw (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:17:52 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:49693 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752401AbZFWLRv (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:17:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:17:52 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jens Axboe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel , akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: merging the per-bdi writeback patchset Message-ID: <20090623111752.GA23813@infradead.org> References: <20090623081156.GT31415@kernel.dk> <20090623110933.GA16565@infradead.org> <20090623111209.GZ31415@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090623111209.GZ31415@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Last time we discussed this you said you're happy with 2.6.32. I really > > want to take a more detailed look and put that on the not so urgent list > > because ou didn't seem to rush for .31. So my vote goes for waiting a > > bit longer. > > Yeah, 2.6.32 works for me too, .31 would have been nice though so I > don't have to carry it around anymore. But either is fine, if you and > Andrew want more time to review this stuff, then lets just settle for > .32. Yes, I'd really prefer more time. I also expect to come up with some more changes in that area. Your patch makes the differences between kupdate and pdflush-stye writeback look even more ugly then it already is, so I want to see i there's some nicer way to handle it. I also want to take a look if it makes sense to distangle data integrity and background writeback somehow.