On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> We have these checks scattered, makes sense to put them in
> set_page_dirty() instead. This also fixes a bug where __bio_unmap_user()
> does set_page_dirty_lock() without checking for a compound page, instead
> of adding one more check we move it to set_page_dirty().
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/fs/bio.c b/fs/bio.c
> index cd888f9..ff96cd9 100644
> --- a/fs/bio.c
> +++ b/fs/bio.c
> @@ -902,7 +902,7 @@ void bio_set_pages_dirty(struct bio *bio)
> for (i = 0; i < bio->bi_vcnt; i++) {
> struct page *page = bvec[i].bv_page;
>
> - if (page && !PageCompound(page))
> + if (page)
> set_page_dirty_lock(page);
> }
> }
> diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
> index 52bb263..72195bc 100644
> --- a/fs/direct-io.c
> +++ b/fs/direct-io.c
> @@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ static int dio_bio_complete(struct dio *dio, struct bio *bio)
> for (page_no = 0; page_no < bio->bi_vcnt; page_no++) {
> struct page *page = bvec[page_no].bv_page;
>
> - if (dio->rw == READ && !PageCompound(page))
> + if (dio->rw == READ)
> set_page_dirty_lock(page);
> page_cache_release(page);
> }
> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> index 886ea0d..3c590b9 100644
> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> @@ -861,8 +861,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(redirty_page_for_writepage);
> */
> int fastcall set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
> {
> - struct address_space *mapping = page_mapping(page);
> + struct address_space *mapping;
> +
> + if (unlikely(PageCompound(page)))
> + return 0;
>
> + mapping = page_mapping(page);
> if (likely(mapping)) {
> int (*spd)(struct page *) = mapping->a_ops->set_page_dirty;
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
I'd prefer it if we just remove those two tests from fs without
adding one into set_page_dirty at all; though I've not tested
that recently (replying before remembering the easiest way to
do so), and others may disagree.
The real reason for those tests was that pre-2.6.16 a compound page
stored its destructor in page[1].mapping: which went badly wrong if
that constituent page ever ended up being passed to set_page_dirty.
I moved it somewhere safer in 41d78ba55037468e6c86c53e3076d1a74841de39
but didn't have the courage to remove those tests you're now removing:
the earlier we skip out from that case, the more efficiently it's
handled, I didn't want to slow those paths down in case they were
important to someone.
So I'd be glad to see those tests now gone without replacement.
Hugh
-
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]
