Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:38:17AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen,
> > >
> > > The ->flush() operation (which we've been discussing a bit) would be very
> > > useful now (mainly for XFS).
> > >
> > > At page_launder(), we can call ->flush() if the given page has it defined.
> > > Otherwise use try_to_free_buffers() as we do now for filesystems which
> > > dont care about the special flushing treatment.
> >
> > As of 2.4.0test12, page_launder() will already call the
> > per-address-space writepage() operation for dirty pages. Do you need
> > something similar for clean pages too, or does Linus's new laundry
> > code give you what you need now?
>
> I think the semantics of the filesystem specific ->flush and ->writepage
> are not the same.
>
> Is ok for filesystem specific writepage() code to sync other "physically
> contiguous" dirty pages with reference to the one requested by
> writepage() ?
>
> If so, it can do the same job as the ->flush() idea we've discussing.
Except that for ->writepage you don't have the option of *not* writing
the specified page.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:24 EST