Oliver Xymoron wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:42:05PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > - fsync_buffers_list() will handle them and will return errors to the fsync()
> > > > caller. We only need to handle those buffers which were stripped
> > > > asynchronously by VM activity.
> > >
> > > Are we guaranteed that we'll get a try_to_free_buffers after IO
> > > completion and before sync? I haven't dug through this path much.
> >
> > Think so. That's the only place where buffers are detached. Otherwise,
> > fsync_buffers_list() looks at them all.
>
> The other problem here is that by the time we're in
> try_to_free_buffers we no longer know that we're looking at a harmless
> stale page (readahead?) or a write error, which is why Linus had me
> make the separate end_buffer functions. So I don't think this pans out
> - thoughts?
If the buffer has buffer_req and !buffer_uptodate and !buffer_locked
we know that it was submitted for IO, that the IO has completed, and
that it failed.
-
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 : Fri Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:24 EST