Re: reiser4 patches and todo list

[Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@gmail.com>]

[...]
On 01/08/2012 04:43 PM, Daniel Horne wrote:
>
>
>         Your patch for 2.6.39-1 seems to compile fine on 3.0, but not on
>         3.1 or
>         3.2. The problem seems to be that the patch re-adds the
>         PF_FLUSHER flag
>         to the sched.h, as it relies on it, but on 3.1 and on that
>         flag's value
>         is used for the PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED flag.
>
>         I'd be tempted to to swap the PF_FLUSHER check for PF_SWAPWRITE,
>         as all
>         kthreads that set PF_FLUSHER also set PF_SWAPWRITE, but there'd
>         be some
>         false-positives there and I'm not sure what effect this would have.
>
>
>     Hello Daniel,
>
>     I don't see any PF_FLUSHER flag in vanilla 3.2, so it shouldn't
>     be an issue.
>
>     There is one more problem with 3.X. I have described it here:
>     http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-__devel&m=132603099732236&w=2
>     <http://marc.info/?l=reiserfs-devel&m=132603099732236&w=2>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Edward.
>
>
>
> There isn't a PF_FLUSHER, but the value it used to have is now defined
> as PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED.

Ah, you are right.

> I suppose we could define PF_FLUSHER to be 0x00080000, as that doesn't
> seem to be taken.

Yes, that's the way.
We need to make sure that task is a flusher, so I think using
PF_SWAPWRITE for this purpose is not a good idea..

Thanks!
Edward.