Hi Hugh,

On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
quoted text
> 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 <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>

                                  Pekka
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/