Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11

Andrea Arcangeli
2001-09-19T23:40:21Z

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:30:55PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> "swapon() messing with block_size when accidentially called for mounted

swap should never change softblocksize etc.. the concept of
softblocksize will die as soon as we make the buffercache - physically
address space backed.

> Umm... Not doing unnecessary work? Semantics of releasing a block device
> depends on the kind of use. BTW, I'm less than sure that fsync_dev() is
> the right thing for file access now that you've got that in pagecache -
> __block_fsync() seems to be more correct thing to do.

Not really, blkdev isn't a filesystem. It will never have a superblock
and its own inodes and we also need to filemap_fdatasync/wait the
physical address space.

> /me goes to get some sleep.

night.

Andrea