On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Minchan -- > > > First of all, thanks for resolving conflict with my patch. > > You're welcome! As I pointed out offlist, yours was the first > change in MM that caused any semantic changes to the cleancache > core hooks patch since before 2.6.18. > > > Before I suggested a thing about cleancache_flush_page, > > cleancache_flush_inode. > > > > what's the meaning of flush's semantic? > > I thought it means invalidation. > > AFAIC, how about change flush with invalidate? > > I'm not sure the words "flush" and "invalidate" are defined > precisely or used consistently everywhere in computer > science, but I think that "invalidate" is to destroy > a "pointer" to some data, but not necessarily destroy the > data itself. And "flush" means to actually remove > the data. So one would "invalidate a mapping" but one > would "flush a cache". > > Since cleancache_flush_page and cleancache_flush_inode > semantically remove data from cleancache, I think flush > is a better name than invalidate. > > Does that make sense? > nope ;) Kernel code freely uses "flush" to refer to both invalidation and to writeback, sometimes in confusing ways. In this case, cleancache_flush_inode and cleancache_flush_page rather sound like they might write those things to backing store. -- 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
