[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: correction: fs/buffer.c underlocking async pages

Chris Mason <>
06/21/01 08:20 PM
Please respond to Chris Mason

To: Andrea Arcangeli <>, Linus Torvalds
cc: Stefan Bader/Germany/IBM@IBMDE,
Subject: Re: correction: fs/buffer.c underlocking async

On Thursday, June 21, 2001 07:15:22 PM +0200 Andrea Arcangeli
<> wrote:

>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:56:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> What's the problem with the existing code, and why do people want to
>> a
>>> (unnecessary) new bit?
>> there's no problem with the existing code, what I understood is that
>> they cannot overwrite the ->b_end_io callback in the lowlevel blkdev
>> layer or the page will be unlocked too early.

>Just to be more explicit, the big problem is mixing different async
>callbacks on the same page. The patch would also allow things like this:
>fs_specific_end_io() {
> do something special
> end_buffer_io_async()

Yes, that was exactly the thing I tried to do. In my case some sort of
how many IO's where mapped (to a certain path) and how many came back.
My assumption first was, if I am restoring the old pointers before I call
the original
function it should work.
After running into problems this patch was just my quick hack to try out
whether this
was the only place that I did not think of. I wouldn't insist on the exact
way to do it,
but since it worked for me, I thought it might be worth to discuss (or
even be useful
for other people... ;-)).

- Stefan

Linux for eServer development
Phone: +49 (7031) 16-2472

When all other means of communication fail, try words.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.020 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site