Re: Test12 ll_rw_block error.

Marcelo Tosatti
2000-12-19T19:42:48Z

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:38:17AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen,
> > > >
> > > > The ->flush() operation (which we've been discussing a bit) would be very
> > > > useful now (mainly for XFS).
> > > >
> > > > At page_launder(), we can call ->flush() if the given page has it defined.
> > > > Otherwise use try_to_free_buffers() as we do now for filesystems which
> > > > dont care about the special flushing treatment.
> > >
> > > As of 2.4.0test12, page_launder() will already call the
> > > per-address-space writepage() operation for dirty pages. Do you need
> > > something similar for clean pages too, or does Linus's new laundry
> > > code give you what you need now?
> >
> > I think the semantics of the filesystem specific ->flush and ->writepage
> > are not the same.
> >
> > Is ok for filesystem specific writepage() code to sync other "physically
> > contiguous" dirty pages with reference to the one requested by
> > writepage() ?
> >
> > If so, it can do the same job as the ->flush() idea we've discussing.
>
> Except that for ->writepage you don't have the option of *not* writing
> the specified page.

It does.

Both the swapper writepage() operation and shm_writepage() cannot be able
to write the page.