From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: disallow FS recursion from sb_issue_discard allocation Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:33:52 -0400 Message-ID: <20100727153352.GA5574@redhat.com> References: <20100702181430.GD26916@redhat.com> <20100706161155.GA24461@redhat.com> <20100727134414.GC18966@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jens Axboe , Mikulas Patocka , dm-devel@redhat.com, Alasdair G Kergon , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Ted Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3027 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753580Ab0G0PeN (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:34:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100727134414.GC18966@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 27 2010 at 9:44am -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:11:56PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > Filesystems can call sb_issue_discard on a memory reclaim path > > (e.g. ext4 calls sb_issue_discard during journal commit). > > > > Use GFP_NOFS in sb_issue_discard to avoid recursing back into the FS. > > > > Reported-by: Mikulas Patocka > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer > > Hi Jens, > > I never saw an ack from you on this patch. Are you ok with it, and > have you grabbed it for your tree? Do you want me to include this in > the ext4 tree, even though it's a patch to include/linux/blkdev.h? Hi Ted, Thanks for following up on this. In my experience, Jens is more apt to pick up a patch if it gets explicitly 'Acked-by' other stake-holders (especially when a patch is motivated by another subsystem, in this case the proposed block change addresses a problem unique to fs/ext4). Mike