lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.10-pre11


On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > There certainly _are_ differences (e.g. in handling the moment
> > when you close them).
>
> there aren't difference, only thing that matters is: "is that an fs
> or a blkdev". SWAP/RAW/FILE is useless.

fsync_dev() is not needed for raw devices or swap. It _is_ needed for
file access.

> > > (infact I never had a single report), but well we'll verify that in
> >
> > Richard, is that you? What had you done with real Andrea?
>
> You also screwup things sometime (think the few liner you posts to l-k
> after your cleanups). Those are minor bugs, so I'm not going to panic

Certainly.

> on them (ramdisk works not by luck), this is what I meant, and they will

Sorry, it just sounded so..., well, familiar... Couldn't resist ;-) (BTW,
Richard, _what_ political whatever could be found in that?)

> be fixed shortly somehow, and many thanks for the further auditing.

Andrea, had you seen the off-list mail (cc: to you and Linus)? The main
problem I have right now is that I don't see how you manage to guarantee
that during the last ->release() no requests are going in. Old code
did unconditional invalidate_buffers() to wipe out all buffer_heads when
device is finally closed. Absense of pagecache sources was guaranteed
by umount() - by the time when we release ->s_bdev all pages are gone.
How do you deal with that in the current code?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.149 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site