Hi Yunlong,
On 2017/10/28 23:58, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Hi Chao,
> Thanks for your work. I send a v2 patch, which changes refresh_sit_entry
> to static.
The cleanup looks good to me, but you know, the commit title is not friendly
for reading, what about using common 'Revert: "original commit
Hi Yunlong,
On 2017/10/28 23:58, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Hi Chao,
> Thanks for your work. I send a v2 patch, which changes refresh_sit_entry
> to static.
The cleanup looks good to me, but you know, the commit title is not friendly
for reading, what about using common 'Revert: "original commit
Hi Chao,
Thanks for your work. I send a v2 patch, which changes
refresh_sit_entry to static.
On 2017/10/28 20:02, Chao Yu wrote:
Hi Yunlong,
I think you're so busy, I just help to refactor your patch, and send it out
authored with you, please check that patch, if you have different
Hi Chao,
Thanks for your work. I send a v2 patch, which changes
refresh_sit_entry to static.
On 2017/10/28 20:02, Chao Yu wrote:
Hi Yunlong,
I think you're so busy, I just help to refactor your patch, and send it out
authored with you, please check that patch, if you have different
Hi Yunlong,
I think you're so busy, I just help to refactor your patch, and send it out
authored with you, please check that patch, if you have different opinion, let
me know.
Thanks,
On 2017/10/16 11:43, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> Oh, yes it is. I found that
Hi Yunlong,
I think you're so busy, I just help to refactor your patch, and send it out
authored with you, please check that patch, if you have different opinion, let
me know.
Thanks,
On 2017/10/16 11:43, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> Oh, yes it is. I found that
On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have
> commit
> c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment
> after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still
> behind
>
On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have
> commit
> c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment
> after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still
> behind
>
Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have
commit
c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment
after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still
behind
refresh_sit_entry. Now I understand the commit message:
Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have
commit
c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment
after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still
behind
refresh_sit_entry. Now I understand the commit message:
On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some
> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are
> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes
> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and
On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some
> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are
> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes
> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and
12 matches
Mail list logo
