Messages in this thread |  | | From | Thomas Quinot <> | Subject | Re: About bdflush(update) & kernel 2.0 | Date | Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:33:45 +0200 (MET DST) |
| |
> > What you wrote is correct, except for the fact that what you call 'bdflush' > > is actually 'update'. 'bdflush' is what 'kflushd' was called before being > > implemented as a kernel thread. > > It doesn't seem to be relevant but for the record: both processes used to > call (and still do, as explained above) the bdflush system call, only the > arguments were different.
Indeed. update calls bdflush(2)'s function 1 to sync_old_buffers. Actually it would only call sync(2) as a fallback if this call to bdflush(2) failed (note : I may seem to have written something different earlier in this thread. I read the sources more thouroughly since then :-) ).
> (this one hasn't changed). So which one is more bdflush?
Considering the comments in fs/buffer.c, I would say the answer is kflushd : bdflush(2)'s function 1 only calls sync_old_buffers, which has the comment "this function is essentially \"update\"" ; bdflush() (the routine that constitutes the kflushd thread) also has the mention "This is the actual bdflush daemon itself."
-- Thomas.Quinot@Cuivre.FdN.FR <URL:http://Web.FdN.FR/~tquinot/>
|  |