From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 45/51] writeback: implement wb_wait_for_single_work()
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 23:07:23 -0400
Message-ID: <20150702030723.GN26440@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <1432329245-5844-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <1432329245-5844-46-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <20150701190735.GI7252@quack.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	vgoyal@redhat.com, lizefan@huawei.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.cz, clm@fb.com,
	fengguang.wu@intel.com, david@fromorbit.com, gthelen@google.com,
	khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Return-path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150701190735.GI7252@quack.suse.cz>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 09:07:35PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> I don't understand, why is the special handling with single_wait,
> single_done necessary. When we fail to allocate work and thus use the
> base_work for submission, we can still use the standard completion mechanism
> to wait for work to finish, can't we?

Indeed.  I'm not sure why I didn't do that.  I'll try.

> BTW: Again it would be easier for me to review this if the implementation
> of this function was in one patch with the use of it so that one can see
> how it gets used...

Same point on this one as before.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>