Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:03:14 -0600 | From | "Eric Van Hensbergen" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 9p: add write-cache support to loose cache mode (take 4) |
| |
On 2/16/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:46:59 -0600 > Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote: > > + if(!PageUptodate(page)) { > > + if (to - from != PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) { > > + void *kaddr = kmap_atomic(page, KM_USER0); > > + memset(kaddr, 0, from); > > + memset(kaddr + to, 0, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - to); > > + flush_dcache_page(page); > > + kunmap_atomic(kaddr, KM_USER0); > > + } > > + if ((file->f_flags & O_ACCMODE) != O_WRONLY) > > + v9fs_vfs_readpage_worker(file, page); > > + } > > Seems strange to memset part of the page and to then go and fill the page > in from backing store. Perhaps some optimisation is possible here? >
Just double-checking in an effort to actually get the next patch right (hopefully) -- seems like there are two cases -- if I can read from the file, I just call readpage and it'll zero out bits. If the file is open write-only, things are a little cloudy -- fs/cifs looks like they just don't do anything. In the write-only case, do I need to zero the unwritten portions of the page, or does this get handled under the covers? Looks like NFS just avoids this by only writing the bits that change, which I suppose has other advantages. I'll refactor the writepage code to follow the NFS example versus the CIFS code I originally based my implementation on.
-eric - 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/
|  |