From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 3/5] afs: new aops Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:30:05 +0000 Message-ID: <17445.1194913805@redhat.com> References: <20071113001548.GA30650@wotan.suse.de> <20071112071448.GE22953@wotan.suse.de> <20071112071245.GB22953@wotan.suse.de> <6161.1194881354@redhat.com> Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, phillip@hellewell.homeip.net, sfrench@samba.org To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38581 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752923AbXKMAcY (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:32:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071113001548.GA30650@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin wrote: > PAGE_CACHE_SIZE should be used to address the pagecache. Perhaps, but the function being called from there takes pages not page cache slots. If I have to allow for PAGE_CACHE_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE then I need to modify my code, if not then the assertion needs to remain what it is. > > I notice you removed the stuff that clears holes in the page to be > > written. Is this is now done by the caller? > > It is supposed to bring the page uptodate first. So, no need to clear > AFAIKS? Hmmm... I suppose. However, it is wasteful in the common case as it is then bringing the page up to date by filling/clearing the whole of it and not just the bits that are not going to be written. David