On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 11:34 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> On thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:04:34 -0800, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> > /**
> > - * writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle - start writeback if none underway
> > + * try_to_writeback_inodes_sb_nr - start writeback if none underway
> > * @sb: the superblock
> > * @nr: the number of pages to write
> > *
> > * Invoke writeback_inodes_sb if no writeback is currently underway.
> > * Returns 1 if writeback was started, 0 if not.
> > */
> > -int writeback_inodes_sb_nr_if_idle(struct super_block *sb,
> > +int try_to_writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct super_block *sb,
> > unsigned long nr,
> > enum wb_reason reason)
> > {
> > if (!writeback_in_progress(sb->s_bdi)) {
> > down_read(&sb->s_umount);
> > - writeback_inodes_sb_nr(sb, nr, reason);
> > + if (nr == 0)
> > + writeback_inodes_sb(sb, reason);
> > + else
> > + writeback_inodes_sb_nr(sb, nr, reason);
> > up_read(&sb->s_umount);
> > return 1;
> > } else
> > return 0;
>
> The comment said "Returns 1 if writeback was started", so if writeback_in_progress()
> return true, I think this function also should return 1.
My interpretation of that comment is that it will return 1 only if this
call results in a new writeback being started (not if a writeback was
already in progress).
This patch [4/7] intentionally does not introduce any functional
changes.
> BTW: Does anyone know when this patchset will be merged into the main tree?
I also eagerly await the merge of this patch set.
-Kamal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
