From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:33:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (mail.app.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id kBLNXNqw026283 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:33:24 -0800 Subject: Re: Review: Clear unwritten flag on during partial page truncation From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <20061221113724.GK33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20061220062813.GU44411608@melbourne.sgi.com> <1166681818.5572.190.camel@edge> <20061221113724.GK33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:04:58 +1100 Message-Id: <1166738698.5572.194.camel@edge> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs-dev@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:37 +1100, David Chinner wrote: > > ... > > the same lines. But alot of effort, with the possibility of it not > > being merged at all, as it touches code outside XFS. D'oh. > > Yep, pretty much my thinking as well. > > I forgot about that hack in xfs_count_page_state() - we should > be able to remove that with this change, right? > Hmm, yes, quite possibly ... worth testing out anyway, but I think you may be right there. cheers. -- Nathan