From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k792iJDW016766 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:44:20 -0700 Message-ID: <44D94BE5.7020503@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:43:49 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros References: <44CC2A55.6030207@sandeen.net> <20060731090815.B2280998@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20060809012444.GS2114946@melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20060809012444.GS2114946@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Nathan Scott , xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:08:15AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 10:41:09PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> It looks like these macros are not particularly interesting... this patch kills >>> them. >> Hmm, I'm not sure about some of these.. >> >>> #define XFS_BUF_BUSY(bp) do { } while (0) >>> #define XFS_BUF_ISBUSY(bp) (1) >> This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether >> we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu. > > XFS_BUF_ISBUSY() is only ever used in ASSERT() statements, so I > think that can go. On 2.4: > > #define XFS_BUF_BUSY(bp) ((bp)->b_flags |= XBF_FORCEIO) > > The XBF_FORCEIO affects how we do partial page I/O on 2.4, but is > unused on 2.6. On 2.4, if the flag is set, we ignore the > buffer_uptodate() status of the buffers on the page and re-read all > the buffers in the range specified. For writes, we always write all > the buffers on the page. Hm, 2.4 just seemed so old by now I forgot all about it :) Sorry about that, thanks for the comments, I'll re-jigger taking this (and the rest of your comments) into account. Thanks, -Eric