On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Two examples: devices and bitmaps-in-pagecache trick. But both belong to
> 2.5, so...
Also, they can easily be done with a private inode, if required. So even
in 2.5.x this may not be a major problem.
> BTW, nice timing ;-) -pre6 appeared 5 minutes after I've started testing
> sane-s_lock patch (SMP-safe lock_super() and friends, refcount on superblocks,
> death of mount_sem, beginning of SMP-safe super.c). Oh, well...
>
> Oblock_super(): what the hell is wait_on_super() doing in fsync_file()?
> It gives absolutely no warranties - ->write_super() can easily block, so
> it looks very odd.
A lot of the superblock locking has been odd. It should probably be a
lock_super() + unlock_super(). At least that's what sync_supers() does.
> BTW, while we are dropping the junk from vm_operations_struct, could we lose
> ->protect() and ->wppage()?
Sure. I think sync() and unmap() fall under that heading too - it used to
do a msync(), but that was before we handled dirty pages directly, so...
Linus
-
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 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 21:00:13 EST