In message <[email protected]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >
> > I wonder whether _not setting_ BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK implies that
> > ->writepage() will never return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE for
> > !wbc->for_reclaim case which would explain why we haven't hit this bug
> > before. Hugh, Andrew?
>
> Only ramdisk and shmem have been returning AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE.
> Both of those set BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK. ramdisk never returned it
> if !wbc->for_reclaim. I contend that shmem shouldn't either: it's
> a special code to get the LRU rotation right, not useful elsewhere.
> Though Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt does imply wider use.
Yes, based on vfs.txt I figured unionfs should return
AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE. But, now that unionfs has ->writepages which won't
even call the lower writepage if BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK is on, then perhaps I
no longer need unionfs_writepage to bother checking for
AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE, or even return it up?
But, a future file system _could_ return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE w/o setting
BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK, right? In that case, unionfs will still need to
handle AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE in ->writepage, right?
> I think this is where people use the phrase "go figure" ;)
>
> Hugh
Erez.
-
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]
