[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100727204407.GH6820@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:44:07 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bdi: Use parent filesystem BDI for inodes not
capable of writeback
On Tue 27-07-10 16:21:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 04:12:07PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:01:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > It shouldn't. Block device nodes are on the bdev filesystems, and
> > > Ok, so inode->i_sb->s_bdi will actually point to noop_backing_dev_info
> > > as set by set_anon_super(). Or am I completely out?
> >
> > I think you're right. This seems rather bad if it's indeed true. I'll
> > quickly verify it using Dave's new tracing once I've built a block
> > tree kernel.
>
> Indeed it does. So using ->s_bdi actually is wrong for the block
> device node, given that it does set up the bdevfs inode's
> backing_dev_info to the proper one, but can't actually do it for
> the per-sb one.
Yes. So what I do in inode_to_bdi() is necessary (although I agree it
looks a bit ugly).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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