From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx142.postini.com [74.125.245.142]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F05B6B005A for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:56:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:56:48 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15 v2] mm: add invalidatepage_range address space operation Message-ID: <20120905155648.GA15985@infradead.org> References: <1346451711-1931-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1346451711-1931-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <20120904164316.6e058cbe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Luk?? Czerner Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, hughd@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:36:00AM -0400, Luk?? Czerner wrote: > However if we would want to keep ->invalidatepage_range() and > ->invalidatepage() completely separate then we would have to have > separate truncate_inode_pages_range() and truncate_pagecache_range() > as well for the separation to actually matter. And IMO this would be > much worse... What's the problem with simply changing the ->invalidatepage prototype to always pass the range and updating all instances for it? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org