From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] jbd2: Pass extra bool parameter in journal routines to specify if its ok to fail the journal transaction allocation. Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 20:25:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20110525002520.GM26055@thunk.org> References: <20110524225643.GK26055@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ext4 , Jan Kara To: Manish Katiyar Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:35604 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757405Ab1EYAZb (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 20:25:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 05:14:22PM -0700, Manish Katiyar wrote: > Thanks for your feedback. I'm still learning how to get my somewhat > useful change into ext4 :-) so will keep these points in mind. Yes, > Jan had also pointed that these patches need to be bisectable, so > actually the last version of the patch in the thread should be > complete in itself. But if you say, I can resend the two patches which > have been reviewed and ack'd by Jan in a new separate mail thread with > appropriate changelog and you can ignore these then. Is that ok ? Yes please. Since that will cause the other patches to get renumbered, it's best if you resend them all as a separate mail thread. - Ted