Re: [rfc][patch 3/5] afs: new aops

[David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>]

Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

> It takes a pagecache page, yes. If you follow convention, you use
> PAGE_CACHE_SIZE for that guy. You don't have to allow PAGE_CACHE_SIZE !=
> PAGE_SIZE, and if all the rest of your code is in units of PAGE_SIZE, then
> obviously my changing of just the one unit is even more confusing than
> the current arrangement ;)

The problem is that the code called assumes that the struct page * argument
points to a single page, not an array of pages as would presumably be the case
if PAGE_CACHE_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE.  If I should allow for an array of pages then
the lower functions (specifically afs_deliver_fs_fetch_data()) need to change,
and until that time occurs, the assertion *must* remain as it is now.  It
defends the lower functions against being asked to do something they weren't
designed to do.

So: you may not change the assertion unless you also fix the lower functions.

David