> > --- 2.6-rc/fs/mbcache.c.orig 2005-07-14 20:40:34.000000000 +0900
> > +++ 2.6-rc/fs/mbcache.c 2005-07-14 20:43:42.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ mb_cache_shrink(struct mb_cache *cache,
> > list_for_each_safe(l, ltmp, &mb_cache_lru_list) {
> > struct mb_cache_entry *ce =
> > list_entry(l, struct mb_cache_entry, e_lru_list);
> > - if (ce->e_bdev == bdev) {
> > + if (ce->e_cache == cache && ce->e_bdev == bdev) {
> > list_move_tail(&ce->e_lru_list, &free_list);
> > __mb_cache_entry_unhash(ce);
> > }
>
> this patch looks bogus to me. How could the cache contain entries for the same
> block_device from different file systems? The block_device is sufficient to
> identify the file system, and hence its cache entries.
Why is mb_cache_shrink() declared as:
void
mb_cache_shrink(struct mb_cache *cache, struct block_device *bdev);
The variable cache was never used.
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |