Re: [PATCH] VM: Fix the gfp_mask in invalidate_complete_page2

[Trond Myklebust]

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 09:22 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> 
> Trond Myklebust wrote: 
> > Why? If, as in the case of an NFS directory, there are no dirty pages
> > then the two are supposed to be 100% equivalent.
> Well as you know, lately we've had problems with 
> invalidate_inode_pages2() failing to invalidate pages (regardless of
> their state). So I was thinking truncate_inode_pages() might be
> better for directories since there seem to be more a guarantee that
> the pages will be gone with truncate_inode_pages() than
> invalidate_inode_pages2() (due to the fact there will not be any
> dirty pages).

truncate_inode_pages and invalidate_inode_pages2 are supposed to result
in exactly the same behaviour on NFS directories. If they don't then
that would be a bug.

  Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/