Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+remove\s+dead\s+SYNC_BDFLUSH\s+case\s+in\s+xfs_sync

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+remove\s+dead\s+SYNC_BDFLUSH\s+case\s+in\s+xfs_sync_inodes\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 17:42:20 +0200; A large part of xfs_sync_inodes is conditional on the SYNC_BDFLUSH which is never passed to it. This patch removes it and adds an assert that triggers in case some new code tries to pass SYNC_BDFLUSH; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00056.html (20,727 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: "Bhagi rathi" <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:13:01 +0530; vfs_sync_worker calls with SYNC_BDFLUSH. xfssyncd can call this. I might be missing something if this is not used. Thanks, -Saradhi. [[HTML alternate version deleted]]; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00061.html (26,156 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:37:37 -0500; My eyes glazed over it too, but in xfs_syncsub as hch pointed out to me: if (flags & (SYNC_ATTR|SYNC_DELWRI)) { if (flags & SYNC_BDFLUSH) xfs_finish_reclaim_all(mp, 1); else error = xfs_sync_inodes(m; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00062.html (8,474 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: "Bhagi rathi" <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:24:59 +0530; Ah, I see. It looks we don't use SYNC_BDFLUSH in xfs_sync_inodes. I believe we don't want to flush inodes from xfssync as inodes will be flushed by pdflush, memory cleaner threads. It looks like this; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00066.html (10,197 bytes)
5. [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 17:42:20 +0200; nd perfor; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00457.html (20,727 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: "Bhagi rathi" <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:13:01 +0530; [[HTML al; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00462.html (26,156 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:37:37 -0500; deleted]]; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00463.html (8,474 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: "Bhagi rathi" <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:24:59 +0530; the inode; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00467.html (10,197 bytes)
9. [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 17:42:20 +0200; A large part of xfs_sync_inodes is conditional on the SYNC_BDFLUSH which is never passed to it. This patch removes it and adds an assert that triggers in case some new code tries to pass SYNC_BDFLUSH; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00858.html (20,727 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: "Bhagi rathi" <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:13:01 +0530; vfs_sync_worker calls with SYNC_BDFLUSH. xfssyncd can call this. I might be missing something if this is not used. Thanks, -Saradhi. [[HTML alternate version deleted]]; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00863.html (26,216 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:37:37 -0500; My eyes glazed over it too, but in xfs_syncsub as hch pointed out to me: if (flags & (SYNC_ATTR|SYNC_DELWRI)) { if (flags & SYNC_BDFLUSH) xfs_finish_reclaim_all(mp, 1); else error = xfs_sync_inodes(m; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00864.html (8,608 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] remove dead SYNC_BDFLUSH case in xfs_sync_inodes (score: 1): Author: "Bhagi rathi" <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:24:59 +0530; Ah, I see. It looks we don't use SYNC_BDFLUSH in xfs_sync_inodes. I believe we don't want to flush inodes from xfssync as inodes will be flushed by pdflush, memory cleaner threads. It looks like this; /archives/xfs/2007-09/msg00868.html (10,327 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]