On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:29:21 -0800
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> a) we're now calling try_to_release_page() with a potentially-dirty
> page, whereas it was previously clean.
>
> I wouldn't expect ->releasepage() implementations to go looking at
> PG_Dirty, because that's not what they're suppoed to be interested in.
> But they might do, dunno.
Still an issue, probably minor.
> b) If invalidate_complete_page2() failed due to, say, dirty buffer_heads
> then we now have a clean page with dirty buffers. That is an illegal
> state and the page will leak permanently.
>
> I _think_ that's what the was_dirty logic is in there for: to
> preserve the correct page-vs-buffers dirtiness coherency. But I'd need
> to do some 2.5.x changelog-dumpster-diving to be sure.
no, that's bs. The patch looks OK from that POV: try_to_release_page()
will be able to clear clean buffers from a dirty page.
And in fact if it did that, it will then clean the page for us (see
test_clear_page_dirty() in try_to_free_buffers()).
But we still need the clear_page_dirty() in invalidate_complete_page2() in
case we didn't call try_to_release_page() at all.
> Trond, please define precisely and completely and without reference to
> the existing implementation: what behaviour does NFS want?
But this would be nice.
-
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]
