From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756651Ab1IBXMO (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2011 19:12:14 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39326 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756470Ab1IBXMN (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2011 19:12:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 01:12:12 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Jens Axboe Cc: Jan Kara , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] Small cleanup of bdi_forker_thread() Message-ID: <20110902231212.GH12182@quack.suse.cz> References: <1315004059-9844-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <4E61619E.8040105@fusionio.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E61619E.8040105@fusionio.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 02-09-11 17:07:10, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2011-09-02 16:54, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Hi Jens, > > > > so after I realized how I underestimated subtlety of bdi_forker_thread() > > here are two small cleanups to it. The first one puts clearing of BDI_pending > > in a more natural place, the second patch adds a comment so that fools like > > me don't try to optimize the function in a wrong place... > > Thanks Jan, I've queued it up for 3.1. I've marked it as stable, looks > like we need it from 2.6.36 and above. Thanks. But is it really a stable material? It's just a cleanup after all... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR