On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Al,
>
> Thanks. I'll print this one out and post it on the wall for tonight's
> debugging session.
[snip]
> > (e.g. generic_commit_write have to mess with i_size value to update the
^^^^^^^
Ugh. s/have/doesn't have/, indeed. Sorry.
As for tonight's debugging session... I love your optimism, but I would
really like to see comments from Linus. For one thing, patch intersects
with Rik's one, so I wouldn't expect that to be over tonight (and that's
completely aside of the chances that Linus will say "no" to that idea).
Linus?
ObDevices: the last time when we were talking about the devices-in-pagecache
the things stopped on the ->i_size accesses and related ugliness. IMO the
main reason of that ugliness was in the attempts to _move_ the i_size to
address_space. Which was a patently bad idea. How about mirroring it
there? Notice that atomicity is not an issue - we don't have it when we
set/modify long long anyway. Said that, I really think that caching the
values of these expressions makes sense regardless of device handling.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
