Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I'd much prefer if you would handle this in the filesystem, and have it
> > > set PG_private whenever fscache needs to receive a callback, and DTRT
> > > depending on whether PG_fscache etc. is set or not.
> >
> > That's tricky and slower[*]. One of the things I want to do is to modify
> > iso9660 to do be able to do caching, but PG_private is 'owned' by the
> > generic buffer cache code.
>
> Maybe it is harder, but it is the right way to do it.
You're wrong. It would mean that PG_private is the logical disjunction of
PG_fscache and some condition not otherwise explicitly stored. I tried that
with NFS and it was nasty.
As you can no doubt see, it means that you can't distinguish all the states
you used to be able to.
> So you should modify the filesystems rather than core code.
I think you missed what I said:
but PG_private is 'owned' by the generic buffer cache code.
That means more of the core code would have to change - or, at least, change
more.
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]
