[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200904030431.04079.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:31:03 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/43] FS-Cache: Recruit a couple of page flags for cache management [ver #46]
On Friday 03 April 2009 04:09:15 David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Comments about PG_private still stand.
>
> Replies about PG_private still stand.
>
> It's owned by fs/buffer.c, and if the 'netfs' uses that, then PG_private is
> not available.
Well in theory I still think it would be cleanest to modify buffer to
play more nicely with it. But maybe that ends up being harder to
distinguish the 3 cases of attached metadata on the page. I don't know,
you haven't posted any isofs code so either way it is inappropriate to
use up this extra page flag here.
Is isofs cache worth a page flag?
--
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