From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Fix page_mkwrite() for blocksize < pagesize Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:11:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20090604171142.GB13639@mit.edu> References: <1243429268-3028-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20090527142332.GB10842@mit.edu> <20090527145911.GH16006@duck.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: LKML , npiggin@suse.de, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:47681 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751045AbZFDRLp (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:11:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090527145911.GH16006@duck.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 04:59:11PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Yes, that would be fine. Thanks. Luckily, the dependence is just one way > (ext4 change has to go after the VFS patch) so it's just enough to merge > that ext4 change some time after VFS changes go in. ext4: Add WARN_ON on unmapped dirty buffer_heads in writepage fs: Don't clear dirty bits in block_write_full_page() vfs: Unmap underlying metadata of new data buffers only when buffer is m ext4: Make sure blocks are properly allocated under mmaped page even whe vfs: Add better VFS support for page_mkwrite when blocksize < pagesize FYI, I've added the following to the unstable portion of the patch queue, and have started running tests (fsx, fsstress, and dbench) using 1k blocksizes, using a variety of ext4 mount options. So far, things look good. How goes the reviews/comments? Are we planning on pushing this to Linus at the beginning of the next merge window? - Ted