[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061229152742.GA28710@thunk.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:27:42 -0500
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
kenneth.w.chen@...el.com, guichaz@...oo.fr, hugh@...itas.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ranma@...edrich.de,
gordonfarquharson@...il.com, akpm@...l.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
tbm@...ius.com, arjan@...radead.org, andrei.popa@...eo.ro
Subject: Re: Ok, explained.. (was Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_mkclean_one)
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 12:58:12AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Because what "__set_page_dirty_buffers()" does is that AT THE TIME THE
> "set_page_dirty()" IS CALLED, it will mark all the buffers on that page as
> dirty. That may _sound_ like what we want, but it really isn't. Because by
> the time "writepage()" is actually called (which can be MUCH MUCH later),
> some internal filesystem activity may actually have cleaned one or more of
> those buffers in the meantime, and now we call "writepage()" (which really
> wants to write them _all_), and it will write only part of them, or none
> at all.
I'm confused. Does this mean that if "fs blocksize"=="VM pagesize"
this bug can't trigger? But I thought at least one of people
reporting corruption was using a filesystem with a 4k block size on an
i386?
- Ted
-
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