On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 02:58:06PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim jaeg...@kernel.org
wrote:
IMO, it's similar to flash drives too. Indeed, I believe host-managed
SMR/flash
drives are likely to show much better performance than drive-managed ones.
If I had one, its performance would be abysmal, as
Hi Jaegeuk,
-Original Message-
From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaeg...@kernel.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 6:03 AM
To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org;
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: do not
-Original Message-
From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaeg...@kernel.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:23 AM
To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org;
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: increase the number
Hi Dan,
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 01:40:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Hello Jaegeuk Kim,
The patch 86531d6b84bc: f2fs: callers take care of the page from bio
error from Jul 15, 2015, leads to the following static checker
warning:
fs/f2fs/node.c:1042 ra_node_page()
warn:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:18:37AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
1041 err = read_node_page(apage, READA);
1042 f2fs_put_page(apage, err ? 1 : 0);
In the old code we took errors into consideration but now we treat them
as LOCKED_PAGE. Is that intentional? A lot of the
