On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 02:50:34PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 12:17:06PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > It's no worse than XFS (which still has its own implementation of
> > 'synchronisation variables',
>
> Which are a trivial wrapper around wait queues. I have pa
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 14:50 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 12:17:06PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > > - compat.h needs to go
> >
> > Later. It's still there for XFS.
>
> ?
> > > - there should be manpages for all the ioctls and other interfaces.
> >
> > I wond
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 12:17:06PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> It's no worse than XFS (which still has its own implementation of
> 'synchronisation variables',
Which are a trivial wrapper around wait queues. I have patches to kill
them, but I'm not entirely sure it's worth it
> a (very thin)
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Some items I remember from my last look at the code that should
> be cleaned up before mainline merge (that wasn't a full in depth review):
>
> - locking.c needs a lot of cleanup.
> If combination spinlocks/mutexes are really a win they
Hi Yan Zheng,
Thanks in advance!
Here are the new description and the new patch(based on standalone git tree):
This is a patch to fix discard semantic to make Btrfs work with FTL(or
SSD?). As we know, we can improve FTL's performance by telling it
which sectors are freed by file system. But if
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:38:07 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 01:37 +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> > In addition, there seem to be well-separated reusable routines such as
> > async-thread (enhanced workqueue) and extent_map. Do you intend to
> > move these into lib/ or so?
>
>
