On Wed 14-01-15 10:42:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Since 018a17bdc865 ("bdi: reimplement bdev_inode_switch_bdi()") the
> block device code writes out all dirty data whenever switching the
> backing_dev_info for a block device inode. But a block device inode can
> only be dirtied when it is in us
Since 018a17bdc865 ("bdi: reimplement bdev_inode_switch_bdi()") the
block device code writes out all dirty data whenever switching the
backing_dev_info for a block device inode. But a block device inode can
only be dirtied when it is in use, which means we only have to write it
out on the final bl
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 12:32:09PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Is this an optimization or something necessary for the following
> changes? If latter, maybe it's a good idea to state why this is
> necessary in the description? Otherwise,
It gets rid of a bdi reassignment, and thus makes life a lot
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 06:45:25PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Since "bdi: reimplement bdev_inode_switch_bdi()" the block device code
018a17bdc865 ("bdi: reimplement bdev_inode_switch_bdi()") would be
better.
> writes out all dirty data whenever switching the backing_dev_info for
>
Since "bdi: reimplement bdev_inode_switch_bdi()" the block device code
writes out all dirty data whenever switching the backing_dev_info for
a block device inode. But a block device inode can only be dirtied
when it is in use, which means we only have to write it out on the
final blkdev_put, but n
