lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: add replace_page_cache_page() function
From
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I disagree with you there: I like the way Miklos made it symmetric,
>> > I like the way delete_from_swap_cache drops the swap cache reference,
>> > I dislike the way remove_from_page_cache does not - I did once try to
>> > change that, but did a bad job, messed up reiserfs or reiser4 I forget
>> > which, retreated in shame.
>>
>> I agree symmetric is good. I just said current fact which is that
>> remove_from_page_cache doesn't release ref.
>> So I thought we have to match current semantic to protect confusing.
>> Okay. I will not oppose current semantics.
>> Instead of it, please add it (ex, caller should hold the page
>> reference) in function description.
>>
>> I am happy to hear that you tried it.
>> Although it is hard, I think it's very valuable thing.
>> Could you give me hint to googling your effort and why it is failed?
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/24/140

Thanks.

Now we have only 3 callers of remove_from_page_cache in mmtom.

1. truncate_huge_page
2. shmem_writepage
3. truncate_complete_page
4. fuse_try_move_page

It seems all of caller hold the page reference so It's ok to change
the semantic of remove_from_page_cache.
Okay. I will do that.

>
> Hugh
>



--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-17 05:39    [W:0.083 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site