On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 22:54 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> this doesn't look like a full first class flag to me yet. Don't
> we need to check for buffer_unwritten in the places we're checking
> for buffer_delay so we can stop setting buffer_delay for unwritten
> buffers?
Yep, that does need to be done. The first of the two calls
to set_buffer_delay can be removed from __xfs_get_blocks also
(currently there is an implied association between Delay and
Unwritten, which should be removed now).
I have a vague memory of some magic sysrq code (from 2.4 days)
which counted BH state on a page - if that still exists it'd
need to be updated too, but I can't seem to find it in current
2.6 kernels (used to live in buffer.c in ye olde 2.4 days). It
probably left us around the time of PG_private's introduction.
cheers.
--
Nathan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
