Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:43:01 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 |
| |
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
> > <nod> And if you add Andrea's (perfectly valid) observation re having no > > need to sync any fs structures we might have for that device, you get > > __block_fsync(). After that it's easy to merge blkdev_close() code into > > blkdev_put(). > > > > > > Ok, __block_fsync is much better than just fsync_dev. > > Are there other parts of blkdev_close you want merged into > blkdev_put? Without changing the reread blocks on last close > semantics, I think this is all we can do. > > As far as I can tell, bdev->bd_inode is valid to send > to __block_fsync, am I missing something?
Eventually that will be the right thing, but only after we allocate bd_inode upon blkdev_get()/blkdev_open() instead of trying to cannibalize the inode passed to blkdev_open().
I'm testing that chunk right now (it also kills all the fake_inode crap in block_dev.c).
When we cut the lifetime of block_device down we'll be able to get it even simpler - allocate and free ->bd_inode at the same time as block_device, but that's several chunks later.
- 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/
|  |