[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53F40A12.6040506@lge.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:38:10 +0900
From: Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
이건호 <gunho.lee@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] fs/buffer.c: allocate buffer cache with user specific
flag
>>>> @@ -1381,12 +1383,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__find_get_block);
>>>> struct buffer_head *
>>>> __getblk(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct buffer_head *bh = __find_get_block(bdev, block, size);
>>>> -
>>>> - might_sleep();
>>>> - if (bh == NULL)
>>>> - bh = __getblk_slow(bdev, block, size);
>>>> - return bh;
>>>> + return __getblk_gfp(bdev, block, size, __GFP_MOVABLE);
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__getblk);
>>> Why did you remove the __find_get_block() call? That looks like a bug.
> I'm not sure if you didn't miss this comment....
I'm sorry I missed it.
I think calling __find_get_block() in __getblk_gfp() can replace it.
I'm not sure about it.
If anybody disagree with it, I'll change it as the original code.
--
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