Hi Hugh, On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With unionfs also fixed, we don't know of an absolute need for this > patch (and so, on that basis, the !wbc->for_reclaim case could indeed > be removed very soon); but as I see it, the unionfs case has shown > that it's time to future-proof this code against whatever stacking > filesystems come along.
Heh, what can I say, after several readings, I still find your above explanation (which I totally agree with) more to the point than the actual comment :-). In any case, the patch looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pekka - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html