> From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Dan Magenheimer > <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Minchan -- > > > > > 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. OK, I guess I am displaying my kernel-newbie-ness... though, in this case, writeback of a cleancache page to backing store doesn't make much sense either (since cleancache pages are by definition "clean"). I'm happy to rename the hooks, though will probably not repost a V9 unless/until more substantive changes collect... unless someone considers this an unmergeable offense. Thanks for the feedback, Minchan and Andrew! Dan -- 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
