On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:42:54 -0400 (EDT) > From: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Luk?? Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, hughd@xxxxxxxxxx, > linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15 v2] mm: add invalidatepage_range address space > operation > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:56:48 -0400 > > From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: Luk?? Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > > linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, hughd@xxxxxxxxxx, > > linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15 v2] mm: add invalidatepage_range address space > > operation > > > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:36:00AM -0400, Luk?? Czerner wrote: > > > However if we would want to keep ->invalidatepage_range() and > > > ->invalidatepage() completely separate then we would have to have > > > separate truncate_inode_pages_range() and truncate_pagecache_range() > > > as well for the separation to actually matter. And IMO this would be > > > much worse... > > > > What's the problem with simply changing the ->invalidatepage prototype > > to always pass the range and updating all instances for it? > > > > The problem is that it would require me to implement this > functionality for _all_ the file systems, because it is not just > about changing the prototype, but also changing the implementation to > be able to handle unaligned end of the range. This change would > involve 20 file systems. > > It is not impossible though... so if people think that it's the > right way to go, then I guess it can be done. > > -Lukas Are there still any objections or comments about this ? -Lukas
