lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.129 / U:1.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site