[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230810155350.GE28000@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:53:50 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] xfs: document the invalidate_bdev call in
invalidate_bdev
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 03:39:23PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > + * read from the same page in the pagecache.
> > + *
> > + * The unmount writes updated inode metadata to disk directly. The XFS
> > + * buffer cache does not use the bdev pagecache, nor does it invalidate
> > + * the pagecache on umount. If the above scenario occurs, the pagecache
>
> This sentence reads a little strangely, since "nor does it invalidate"
> would seem to conflict with the invalidate_bdev call below. I suggest
> changing the verb a bit:
>
> "The XFS buffer cache does not use the bdev pagecache, so it needs to
> invalidate that pagecache on unmount."
Agreed. I'll forward it to the original author of the sentence time
permitting :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists