Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:05:00 -0800 | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Backing device changes for 3.20 | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote: > > This pull request contains a cleanup of how the backing device is > handled, in preparation for a rework of the life time rules. In this > part, the most important change is to split the unrelated nommu mmap > flags from it, but also removing a backing_dev_info pointer from the > address_space (and inode), and a cleanup of other various minor bits.
Ugh, so this has a semantic conflict with the NFS client, that has this particular code:
if (!cinfo->dreq) { inc_zone_page_state(req->wb_page, NR_UNSTABLE_NFS); - inc_bdi_stat(page_file_mapping(req->wb_page)->backing_dev_info, + inc_bdi_stat(inode_to_bdi(page_file_mapping(req->wb_page)->host), BDI_RECLAIMABLE); __mark_inode_dirty(req->wb_context->dentry->d_inode, I_DIRTY_DATASYNC); }
duplicated several times, and now one more time in the new fs/nfs/flexfilelayout/flexfilelayout.c file.
I fixed it the same way it was fixed everywhere else, but while fixing and looking at the cases, I *really* feel like the nfs code needs some cleaning up.
That insane complicated and unexplained code exists three times: in filelayout/filelayout.c, flexfilelayout/flexfilelayout.c and in write.c.
The "reverse" case (which does the decrements, and doesn't mark the inode dirty) exists a few more times.
Could we make that a helper function, with a few comments. For example, looking at it, I wonder if
- page_file_mapping(req->wb_page)->host - req->wb_context->dentry->d_inode
are the same inode?
Hmm?
Linus
| |