Re: [PATCH] Re: test10-pre7

Alexander Viro
2000-10-30T21:23:48Z

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> How about just changing ->sync_page() semantics to own the page lock? That
> sound slike the right thing anyway, no?

It would kill the ->sync_page(), but yes, _that_ might be the right thing ;-)

> I didn't actually miss it, I just looked at the users and decided that it
> looks like they should never have this issue. But I might have missed
> something. As far as I can tell, "read_cache_page()" is only used for
> meta-data like things that cannot be truncated.

invalidate_inode_pages().

> I'd really like to do these in the thing that locks the page, and make the
> rule be that the page locker needs to do the work. That's why I'd prefer
> to let the test be in the _caller_ of filemap_write_page(), as that's the
> point where we got the lock.

Fine with me, but then we would have to do it in try_to_swap_out() and
that would be Wrong Thing(tm) (e.g. because ->swapout() makes sense for
anonymous pages).

We could do it in filemap_swapout(), but the lock is taken by its caller,
so...
Cheers,
Al