On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
> > <nod> And if you add Andrea's (perfectly valid) observation re having no
> > need to sync any fs structures we might have for that device, you get
> > __block_fsync(). After that it's easy to merge blkdev_close() code into
> > blkdev_put().
> >
> >
>
> Ok, __block_fsync is much better than just fsync_dev.
>
> Are there other parts of blkdev_close you want merged into
> blkdev_put? Without changing the reread blocks on last close
> semantics, I think this is all we can do.
>
> As far as I can tell, bdev->bd_inode is valid to send
> to __block_fsync, am I missing something?
Eventually that will be the right thing, but only after we allocate
bd_inode upon blkdev_get()/blkdev_open() instead of trying to cannibalize
the inode passed to blkdev_open().
I'm testing that chunk right now (it also kills all the fake_inode crap in
block_dev.c).
When we cut the lifetime of block_device down we'll be able to get it
even simpler - allocate and free ->bd_inode at the same time as block_device,
but that's several chunks later.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 21:00:38 EST