On Thursday, December 28, 2000 16:15:48 +0100 Daniel Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>
>> > It's logical that PageDirty should never be get for ramfs,
>>
>> No. Not setting PageDirty will cause the system to move the
>> page to the inactive_clean list and happily reclaim your data.
>>
>> We _have to_ use something like PageDirty for this, and
>> checking for the ->writepage method will even allow us to
>> do stuff like dynamically switching swapping support for
>> ramfs on/off (or other funny things).
>
> You're suggesting using the absence of a method as a kind of flag, but
> the code is really too full of obscure stuff like that already.
>
> How about taking an extra user on the ramfs pages instead. It doesn't
> sound right to set PageDirty when you are not requesting IO.
I think a dirty page without a writepage func seems a bit broken. How
about we give ramfs a writepage func that just returns 1. That way nobody
does any special if (ramfs_page(page)) kinds of tests...
-chris
-
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/
