On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 22:54 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > this doesn't look like a full first class flag to me yet. Don't > we need to check for buffer_unwritten in the places we're checking > for buffer_delay so we can stop setting buffer_delay for unwritten > buffers? Yep, that does need to be done. The first of the two calls to set_buffer_delay can be removed from __xfs_get_blocks also (currently there is an implied association between Delay and Unwritten, which should be removed now). I have a vague memory of some magic sysrq code (from 2.4 days) which counted BH state on a page - if that still exists it'd need to be updated too, but I can't seem to find it in current 2.6 kernels (used to live in buffer.c in ye olde 2.4 days). It probably left us around the time of PG_private's introduction. cheers. -- Nathan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
