| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Patch] xfs: serialise unaligned direct IOs, Amit Sahrawat |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 0/8] xfsdump: enable support for multiple streams, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Patch] xfs: serialise unaligned direct IOs, Amit Sahrawat |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Patch] xfs: serialise unaligned direct IOs, Amit Sahrawat |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |