On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:54:05 +0100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:41:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:07:15 +0100 (CET) Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > So I have finally finished a first slightly-working draft of my new aops > > > op (perform_write) proposal. I would be interested to hear comments about > > > it. Most of my issues and concerns are in the patch headers themselves, > > > so reply to them. > > > > > > The patches are against my latest buffered-write-fix patchset. > > > > What happened with Linus's proposal to instantiate the page as pinned, > > non-uptodate, unlocked and in pagecache while we poke the user address? > > That's still got a deadlock, It does? > and also it doesn't work if we want to lock > the page when performing a minor fault (which I want to fix fault vs > invalidate), It's hard to discuss this without a description of what you want to fix there, and a description of how you plan to fix it. > and also assumes nobody's ->nopage locks the page or > requires any resources that are held by prepare_write (something not > immediately clear to me with the cluster filesystems, at least). The nopage handler is filemap_nopage(). Are there any exceptions to that? > But that all becomes legacy path, so do we really care? Supposing fs > maintainers like perform_write, then after the main ones have implementations > we could switch over to the slow-but-correct prepare_write legacy path. > Or we could leave it, or we could use Linus's slightly-less-buggy scheme... > by that point I expect I'd be sick of arguing about it ;) It's worth "arguing" about. This is write(). What matters more?? - 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
