From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] ext4: Move work from io_end to inode Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:45:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20130128144528.GF22711@thunk.org> References: <1358510446-19174-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1358510446-19174-7-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:45865 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756982Ab3A1Opb (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:45:31 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1358510446-19174-7-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:00:40PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > It does not make much sense to have struct work in ext4_io_end_t because we > always use it for only one ext4_io_end_t per inode (the first one in the > i_completed_io list). So just move the structure to inode itself. This also > allows for a small simplification in processing io_end structures. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara Thanks, applied. (Note, I haven't applied patch 5 yet because it has a dependency on patch #4, and I'm waiting to hear whether we should apply this given the race condition which Dmitry has found. It sounds like it's a pre-existing condition, and not a regression, but I want get a confirmation that applying patches 5 and 6 won't make things worse...) - Ted