[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.10-pre11
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 06:28:11AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > > If we need to avoid the bumping of i_count and to allocate something
> > > > dynamically that will be the bd_mapping address space, we don't need a
> > > > new fake_inode there too, we just need to share the new physical
> > > > pagecahce address space. Such physical i_mapping address space is the
> > >
> > > What are you going to use as mapping->host for it?
> >
> > the only info we'd need from the host is the host->i_rdev, so why can't
> > we get it from the file->f_dentry->d_inode->i_rdev? In general I don't
> In ->writepage()? Good luck. BTW, at some point use of ->i_rdev will have

I would have noticed if I actually wrote the code ;)

static int blkdev_writepage(struct page * page)

no file...

> It doesn't have to be fake. See how it's done for sockets or pipes.

here it's really completly private to the bdev. I mean we could be
tricky and force a cast on mapping->host to point to bdev and we
wouldn't need the fake inode. But casts are probably uglier and more
risky than using the fake_inode (unless we really consdier the host a
cookie rather than an inode pointer). Comments?

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 13:03    [W:0.110 / U:1.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site