On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 12:36:36PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, BROWN Nick wrote:
>=20
> > In the original post, Giuliano said that he umounted the drive, so
> > everything the system knew about the drive should have been thrown away
> > then, surely ?
>=20
> Exactly. Just as a umount forces writing of all buffers, it must
> invalidate the buffers. I'm curious why noone noticed that earlier.
No! Why should we invalidate buffers written to disk?
Imagine every file physically written to disk (by update or whoever) would
have to be reread. This would result in half performance for some apps.
--=20
Dipl.Phys. Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de> [Wuppertal, FRG]
Garloff Linux System Development [Linux-ix86,-axp, DUX]
Plasma physics, high perf. computing [Linux SCSI driver: DC390]
PGP key: see mailheader / key servers =20
--jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3in
iQCVAwUBNyioNhaQN/7O/JIVAQEAeAP8CMi5eGLAr1/eb9wsEMO1/jzpNP3OxAKD
t9USF41CTt60i4ZPDz1fGVos6573YZIZNs0VSl6lOnKwqGb4GqV8g9OMhYCVxf9n
Rg7qQ4GqsMgPKrBmzsZHtELtWD2zf5fFXdQBZfcSfuaqYyYpbi4Zfi30psxzp+Y8
uOaEqBTzH18=
=vx3b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/