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 [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]
