Hi,
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 12:36, Jan Kara wrote:
> > The prevention of multiple writes in this case should also improve
> > performance a little.
> >
> > That ought to be pretty straightforward, I think. The existing cases
> > where we remove buffers from a checkpoint shouldn't have to care about
> > which list_head we're removing from; those cases already handle buffers
> > in both states. It's only when doing the flush/wait that we have to
> > distinguish the two.
> Yes, AFAICS the changes should remain local to the checkpointing code
> (plus __unlink_buffer()). Should I write the patch or will you?
Feel free, but please let me know if you start. I'm doing a bit of
chasing of leaks and dealing with that O_SYNC thing for 2.4 right now,
but I'll get back to the checkpoint code after that if you haven't
started by then.
Cheers,
Stephen
-
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]
