On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> How about just changing ->sync_page() semantics to own the page lock? That
> sound slike the right thing anyway, no?
It would kill the ->sync_page(), but yes, _that_ might be the right thing ;-)
> I didn't actually miss it, I just looked at the users and decided that it
> looks like they should never have this issue. But I might have missed
> something. As far as I can tell, "read_cache_page()" is only used for
> meta-data like things that cannot be truncated.
invalidate_inode_pages().
> I'd really like to do these in the thing that locks the page, and make the
> rule be that the page locker needs to do the work. That's why I'd prefer
> to let the test be in the _caller_ of filemap_write_page(), as that's the
> point where we got the lock.
Fine with me, but then we would have to do it in try_to_swap_out() and
that would be Wrong Thing(tm) (e.g. because ->swapout() makes sense for
anonymous pages).
We could do it in filemap_swapout(), but the lock is taken by its caller,
so...
Cheers,
Al
-
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 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST