Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:18:50 -0200 (BRST) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: Test12 ll_rw_block error. |
| |
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:38:17AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > > > > > > Stephen, > > > > > > > > The ->flush() operation (which we've been discussing a bit) would be very > > > > useful now (mainly for XFS). > > > > > > > > At page_launder(), we can call ->flush() if the given page has it defined. > > > > Otherwise use try_to_free_buffers() as we do now for filesystems which > > > > dont care about the special flushing treatment. > > > > > > As of 2.4.0test12, page_launder() will already call the > > > per-address-space writepage() operation for dirty pages. Do you need > > > something similar for clean pages too, or does Linus's new laundry > > > code give you what you need now? > > > > I think the semantics of the filesystem specific ->flush and ->writepage > > are not the same. > > > > Is ok for filesystem specific writepage() code to sync other "physically > > contiguous" dirty pages with reference to the one requested by > > writepage() ? > > > > If so, it can do the same job as the ->flush() idea we've discussing. > > Except that for ->writepage you don't have the option of *not* writing > the specified page.
It does.
Both the swapper writepage() operation and shm_writepage() cannot be able to write the page.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |