[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Problem in log_do_checkpoint()?

    On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 12:36, Jan Kara wrote:

    > > The prevention of multiple writes in this case should also improve
    > > performance a little.
    > >
    > > That ought to be pretty straightforward, I think. The existing cases
    > > where we remove buffers from a checkpoint shouldn't have to care about
    > > which list_head we're removing from; those cases already handle buffers
    > > in both states. It's only when doing the flush/wait that we have to
    > > distinguish the two.
    > Yes, AFAICS the changes should remain local to the checkpointing code
    > (plus __unlink_buffer()). Should I write the patch or will you?

    Feel free, but please let me know if you start. I'm doing a bit of
    chasing of leaks and dealing with that O_SYNC thing for 2.4 right now,
    but I'll get back to the checkpoint code after that if you haven't
    started by then.


    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: 2005-04-12 16:48    [W:0.059 / U:41.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site