Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 23:07:23 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 45/51] writeback: implement wb_wait_for_single_work()
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
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150701190735.GI7252@quack.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 855
Lines: 25

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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/