Hi, On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 12:36, Jan Kara wrote:
> > The prevention of multiple writes in this case should also improve > > performance a little. > > > > That ought to be pretty straightforward, I think. The existing cases > > where we remove buffers from a checkpoint shouldn't have to care about > > which list_head we're removing from; those cases already handle buffers > > in both states. It's only when doing the flush/wait that we have to > > distinguish the two. > Yes, AFAICS the changes should remain local to the checkpointing code > (plus __unlink_buffer()). Should I write the patch or will you? Feel free, but please let me know if you start. I'm doing a bit of chasing of leaks and dealing with that O_SYNC thing for 2.4 right now, but I'll get back to the checkpoint code after that if you haven't started by then. Cheers, Stephen - 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/
