On Friday 21 December 2007 05:33, David Howells wrote: > 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.
Then make a PG_private2 bit and use that. -- 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/
