From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Generic mpage_writepage() support Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:09:24 -0600 Message-ID: <1108580964.8121.12.camel@localhost> References: <1108409415.20053.1278.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050214134058.1402cfed.akpm@osdl.org> <1108430825.20053.1363.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050214190556.07c4a0c9.akpm@osdl.org> <1108485967.20053.1438.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050215095443.3e646401.akpm@osdl.org> <1108512141.20053.1490.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <16915.12661.494053.290059@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1108579020.20053.1513.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nikita Danilov , fsdevel , ext2-devel Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:31393 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261538AbVBPTJ1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:09:27 -0500 Received: from westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.10]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1GJ9Qua352126 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:09:26 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j1GJ9QMx084148 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:09:26 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1GJ9P9v023961 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:09:26 -0700 To: Badari Pulavarty In-Reply-To: <1108579020.20053.1513.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:37 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > Yes. page->private is assumed for the bufferhead usage. Do you really > need for handling page->private for non-bufferhead usage ? For what it's worth, I'm working on some changes to jfs that will use page->private for non-bufferhead usage for metadata, but I won't be using a generic writepage, so it's not an issue for me. mpage.c already assumes page->private implies bufferheads, so it's not completely generic. Would implementing this as nobh_write_full_page, to complement block_write_full_page, make sense? Thanks, Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center