On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 06:28:11AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > > > If we need to avoid the bumping of i_count and to allocate something
> > > > dynamically that will be the bd_mapping address space, we don't need a
> > > > new fake_inode there too, we just need to share the new physical
> > > > pagecahce address space. Such physical i_mapping address space is the
> > >
> > > What are you going to use as mapping->host for it?
> >
> > the only info we'd need from the host is the host->i_rdev, so why can't
> > we get it from the file->f_dentry->d_inode->i_rdev? In general I don't
>
> In ->writepage()? Good luck. BTW, at some point use of ->i_rdev will have
I would have noticed if I actually wrote the code ;)
static int blkdev_writepage(struct page * page)
{
no file...
> It doesn't have to be fake. See how it's done for sockets or pipes.
here it's really completly private to the bdev. I mean we could be
tricky and force a cast on mapping->host to point to bdev and we
wouldn't need the fake inode. But casts are probably uglier and more
risky than using the fake_inode (unless we really consdier the host a
cookie rather than an inode pointer). Comments?
Andrea
-
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 - 21:00:24 EST