On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:50:59PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 10:21 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:53:14AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > diff -Nurp linux-2.6.24-rc6-git5/fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c linux/fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c
> > > --- linux-2.6.24-rc6-git5/fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c 2007-12-28 10:28:33.000000000 -0600
> > > +++ linux/fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c 2007-12-28 10:37:30.000000000 -0600
> > > @@ -360,6 +360,7 @@ static int metapage_writepage(struct pag
> > > struct metapage *mp;
> > > int redirty = 0;
> > > sector_t lblock;
> > > + int nr_underway = 0;
> > > sector_t pblock;
> > > sector_t next_block = 0;
> > > sector_t page_start;
> > > @@ -371,6 +372,7 @@ static int metapage_writepage(struct pag
> > > (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - inode->i_blkbits);
> > > BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> > > BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page));
> >
> > This line should be moved below:
> > > + set_page_writeback(page);
>
> No. set_page_writeback() needs to be called before submit_bio() is
> called.
Ah yes.
> I don't think there is any harm in calling set_page_writeback(),
> redirty_page_for_writeback() and end_page_writeback() in the case where
> there is no I/O to submit, and some dirty data cannot be written. It is
> consistent with what happens in __block_write_full_page().
>
> It's also possible that some part of the page was written, and another
> part cannot be, causing the page to be redirtied.
You are right. I revisited the code and there's nothing wrong with
your patch :-)
Regards,
Fengguang
--
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]
