[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <005101d01aa4$c1974760$44c5d620$@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:26:03 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@...sung.com>
To: 'Changman Lee' <cm224.lee@...il.com>,
'Jaegeuk Kim' <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: use ra_meta_pages to simplify
readahead code in restore_node_summary
Hi Changman,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Changman Lee [mailto:cm224.lee@...il.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:20 PM
> To: Chao Yu
> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim; Changman Lee; linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: use ra_meta_pages to simplify readahead code in
> restore_node_summary
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there any reason to use truncate_inode_pages_range instead of
> invalidate_mapping_pages?
> IMHO, it seems nice to just use invalidate_mapping_pages because pages
> of meta_inode shouldn't be dirty, locked, under writeback or mapped in
> this function.
> If there is my misunderstanding, let me know.
I think you're right, I use truncate_inode_pages_range because just following the
usage of readahead-invalidate pair in recovery flow, but without considering the
difference between them.
I will fix this as you suggested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Reviewed-by: Changman Lee <cm224.lee@...sung.com>
And thanks for your review! :)
Regards,
Yu
--
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