From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v7] ext4: fix 1k block bugs Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 00:59:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20110906045942.GA4059@thunk.org> References: <1314750513-10045-1-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Allison Henderson Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:59837 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751121Ab1IFE7r (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 00:59:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1314750513-10045-1-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Allison, Many, many thanks for your work on this patch series!! It's clearly been a very long slog. I've pulled in the first three patches, since I think those are clearly correct at this point. One minor change I've made was I fixed the spelling the flag, which I channged to EXT4_DISCARD_PARTIAL_PG_ZERO_UNMAPPED. (Sorry, but seeing MAPED everywhere was just grating on my nerves. :-) I didn't want to apply your 4th patch in the series since we're planning on reducing the usage of i_mutex in the fs/ext4 code proper, as recommended by Christoph. It wasn't immediately obvious to me whether it was safe to apply any of the patches after #4, so for now I've just merged in the first three, since they clearly fix real problems that show up in xfstests. Can you comment on whether patches #5, #6, and #7 depend on #4? Thanks, - Ted