From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753336AbXEXXh6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 19:37:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750729AbXEXXhv (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 19:37:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:55209 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750702AbXEXXhu (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 19:37:50 -0400 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20070524162447.c9e14d14.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070524162447.c9e14d14.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070524154611.080b38ed.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070524144732.d9b2650b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070524133821.3ee9c9f3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070523191518.24135.81257.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20070523191524.24135.2609.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <27608.1180042522@redhat.com> <28590.1180046073@redhat.com> <29173.1180048123@redhat.com> To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] AFS: Add a function to excise a rejected write from the pagecache X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0; nmh 1.2-20070115cvs; GNU Emacs 22.0.50 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 00:37:45 +0100 Message-ID: <29613.1180049865@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > But we already covered that? Your exciser can do an unconditional > end_page_writeback(), because it is this thread of control which did the > set_page_writeback(). So we end up with: Ah, I misunderstood what you meant. I assumed you meant to wait insted of ending. Of course, if we've decided to excise this page, it really oughtn't to get PG_writeback set again. I'll have to think about that. > Well someone needs to be taught all about this case. Question is, should > it be the VFS, or should it just be the address_space(s) which brought > this state about, and which care about it? For the most part, I think that this only applies to netfs's, and possibly not all of those, so making it fully general might be overkill. David