[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e934520-3ed7-470a-ada4-80ae2b41ae60@default>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: linux-next: manual merge of the cleancache tree with Linus' tree
> >>> Is this stuff going to be merged into Linus' tree this time round?
Hi Stephen --
Still TBD. Some discussion has occurred offlist.
> >> I did the cleancache_flush_page() before the
> delete_from_page_cache(),
> >> in case the delete_from_page_cache() freed the page. I didn't
> actually
> >> check whether that makes sense though.
> >
> > I am not sure cleancache's put and flush semantic.
> > If I understand rightly with old __remove_from_page_cache's comment,
> > maybe cleancache_flush_page is to invalidate the page
Hi Minchan and Stephen --
I will take a close look at this and possibly ask Chris Mason to
take a look as well (since these hooks were placed by Chris in 2008
and this is the first significant change around the hooks since then).
I think as long as the page is still locked and the mapping
remains valid, the ordering may not matter, but will confirm
and test.
> Dan, one more thing.
>
> #define cleancache_fs_enabled_mapping(_mapping) \
> (mapping->host->i_sb->cleancache_poolid >= 0)
>
> One is "_mapping", another is "mapping"
Oops! Nice catch, Minchan! Will fix (using C, per
Andrew's reply).
Thanks,
Dan
--
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