Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932184AbXAHWyG (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:54:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932198AbXAHWyG (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:54:06 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:47346 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932184AbXAHWyE (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:54:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:54:02 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: David Chinner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make BH_Unwritten a first class bufferhead flag Message-ID: <20070108225402.GA24787@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , David Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20070108224932.GZ33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070108224932.GZ33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 452 Lines: 9 this doesn't look like a full first class flag to me yet. Don't we need to check for buffer_unwritten in the places we're checking for buffer_delay so we can stop setting buffer_delay for unwritten buffers? - 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/