Hi,
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 03:39 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>
> >>Hmm, doesn't look like we can do this either because at least GFS2
> >>uses BH_New for its own special things.
> >>
> >
> > What makes you say that? As far as I know we are not doing anything we
> > shouldn't with this flag, and if we are, then I'm quite happy to
> > consider fixing it up so that we don't,
>
> Bad wording. Many other filesystems seem to only make use of buffer_new
> between prepare and commit_write.
>
> gfs2 seems to at least test it in a lot of places, so it is hard to know
> whether we can change the current semantics or not. I didn't mean that
> gfs2 is doing anything wrong.
>
> So can we clear it in commit_write?
>
Are you perhaps looking at an older copy of the GFS2 code? We set it (or
clear it) in bmap.c:gfs2_block_map() as appropriate. It also seems to be
cleared when we release buffers (which may or may not be actually
required. I suspect not, but its harmless anyway). There is only one
test that I can find for it which is in bmap.c:gfs2_extent_map() where
its value is then later ignored in the only caller relevant to "normal"
files, which is ops_vm.c:alloc_page_backing(). So I think you should be
quite safe to clear it in commit_write().
Steve.
-
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]
