[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1165853552.3752.1015.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:12:32 +0000
From: Steven Whitehouse <steve@...gwyn.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>,
Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
Hi,
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 02:52 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Mark Fasheh wrote:
>
> >> ->commit_write() would probably do fine. Currently, block_prepare_write()
> >> uses it to know which buffers were newly allocated (the file system
> >> specific
> >> get_block_t sets the bit after allocation). I think we could safely move
> >> the clearing of that bit to block_commit_write(), thus still allowing
> >> us to
> >> detect and zero those blocks in generic_file_buffered_write()
> >
> >
> > OK, great, I'll make a few patches and see how they look. What did you
> > think of those other uninitialised buffer problems in my first email?
>
> Hmm, doesn't look like we can do this either because at least GFS2
> uses BH_New for its own special things.
>
What makes you say that? As far as I know we are not doing anything we
shouldn't with this flag, and if we are, then I'm quite happy to
consider fixing it up so that we don't,
Steve.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists