xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Patch] xfs: serialise unaligned direct IOs

To: Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Patch] xfs: serialise unaligned direct IOs
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:06:47 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CADDb1s3UN4HMKEA2kSEM0HsUCC7DE63B1oJAoL6QpqXBdDCEqQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CADDb1s0WUfvt8N+hMATboKxbMUZdk2N-R2e=KFH2JvGUjbigBg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111103070246.GA10579@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CADDb1s3UN4HMKEA2kSEM0HsUCC7DE63B1oJAoL6QpqXBdDCEqQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 03:29:18PM +0530, Amit Sahrawat wrote:
> > You probably should keep the original Signoff and reviewed-by tags,
> > and add your editor note on the top into [ ] ?brackets.
> Ok, will do so in the final patch. Actually was unaware of information
> to keep in backported patches?

The standard procedure is to keep patches basically as-is.  This doesn't
quite apply for your case, so I think just adding a comment in 
[ ] brackets on the top is the best you can do.

> > You also need to make the i_mutex unlock and need_i_mutex update
> > conditional here, otherwise you still serialize all O_DIRECT writes.
> >
> you mean, keeping need_i_mutex=0 and mutex_unlock as part of 'else' statement.

Yes.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>