Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not sure its a good idea to overload page_has_private() with an
> overloadable page-flag. What if some future FS wants to use
> PG_owner_priv_2 for other purposes?
All that it means is that releasepage() and co will get called if a page is to
be released or invalidated that has that bit set. I think that's something a
future FS could probably live with.
However, I do have to trigger a call to releasepage() and co *somehow*.
> Obviously filesystems cannot use these two page-flags if they want to be
> compatible with FS-cache, but need all filesystems be?
What do you mean? That's why I went for the PG_owner_priv_* approach rather
than just naming the bits unto FS-Cache directly.
> (also, ouch! - 2 pageflags)
Yeah. The consequence of having things asynchronous is that you have to find
signalling mechanisms to synchronise around the asynchronicity:-/
Furthermore, it occurs to me that I can't use PG_private or page->private to
store this information because I want to make isofs use caching, and those two
pieces of information are owned by the buffering code.
David
-
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]
