Re: [PATCH] filemap_fdatasync & related changes

From: Daniel Phillips (phillips@innominate.de)
Date: Thu Jan 04 2001 - 17:52:24 EST

Next message: Asang K Dani: "Re: generic_file_write code segment in 2.2.18"
Previous message: Stephen C. Tweedie: "Re: Journaling: Surviving or allowing unclean shutdown?"
In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] filemap_fdatasync & related changes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'd rather just change the rule that "writepage()" will clear the dirty
> bit itself and always unlock (and "1" just to inform the upper layers that
> the page cannot be thrown away).

Change to that rule or from? I *think* you just said:

- If ->writepage successfully starts writeout on the page it clears
the dirty bit and returns 0

- If not successful, ->writepage unlocks the page and return 1

Who is going to be responsible for checking that the page dirty bit was
really set, and what will happen if it wasn't?

--
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/

Next message: Asang K Dani: "Re: generic_file_write code segment in 2.2.18"
Previous message: Stephen C. Tweedie: "Re: Journaling: Surviving or allowing unclean shutdown?"
In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] filemap_fdatasync & related changes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 07 2001 - 21:00:20 EST