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, 21 Jun 2001 14:21:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:21:26 -0400 Received: from roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com ([24.169.102.121]:42502 "EHLO roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:21:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:20:45 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds cc: Stefan.Bader@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: correction: fs/buffer.c underlocking async pages Message-ID: <555590000.993147645@tiny> In-Reply-To: <20010621191522.B28327@athlon.random> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, June 21, 2001 07:15:22 PM +0200 Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:56:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > What's the problem with the existing code, and why do people want to add > a >> (unnecessary) new bit? > > there's no problem with the existing code, what I understood is that > they cannot overwrite the ->b_end_io callback in the lowlevel blkdev > layer or the page will be unlocked too early. Just to be more explicit, the big problem is mixing different async callbacks on the same page. The patch would also allow things like this: fs_specific_end_io() { do something special end_buffer_io_async() } -chris