From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:55:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:55:28 -0500 Received: from hermes.mixx.net ([212.84.196.2]:35844 "HELO hermes.mixx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:55:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3A54FEA8.F667F61B@innominate.de> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 23:52:24 +0100 From: Daniel Phillips Organization: innominate X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [de] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-prerelease i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds , Chris Mason , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] filemap_fdatasync & related changes In-Reply-To: <6740000.978629925@tiny> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > I'd rather just change the rule that "writepage()" will clear the dirty > bit itself and always unlock (and "1" just to inform the upper layers that > the page cannot be thrown away). Change to that rule or from? I *think* you just said: - If ->writepage successfully starts writeout on the page it clears the dirty bit and returns 0 - If not successful, ->writepage unlocks the page and return 1 Who is going to be responsible for checking that the page dirty bit was really set, and what will happen if it wasn't? -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/