On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 03:32:57PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:05:54AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:15:31PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > +static int ext4_write_cache_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > + struct writeback_control *wbc, writepage_t writepage,
> > > + void *data)
> > > +{
> >
> > Looking at this functions the only difference is killing the
> > writeback_index and range_start updates. If they are bad why would we
> > only remove them from ext4?
>
> I am also not updating wbc->nr_to_write.
...
> I don't think other filesystem have this requirement.
That's true, but there is a lot of code duplication, which means that
bugs or changes in write_cache_pages() would need to be fixed in
ext4_write_cache_pages(). So another approach that might be better
from a long-term code maintenance point of view is to add a flag in
struct writeback_control that tells write_cache_pages() not to update
those fields, and avoid duplicating approximately 95 lines of code.
It means a change in a core mm function, though, so if folks thinks
its too ugly, we can make our own copy in fs/ext4.
Opinions? Andrew, as someone who often weighs in on fs and mm issues,
what do you think? My preference would be to make the change to
mm/page-writeback.c, controlled by a flag which ext4 would set be set
by fs/ext4 before it calls write_cache_pages().
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
