On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:29:11AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > That's true, but there is a lot of code duplication, which means that > bugs or changes in write_cache_pages() would need to be fixed in > ext4_write_cache_pages(). So another approach that might be better > from a long-term code maintenance point of view is to add a flag in > struct writeback_control that tells write_cache_pages() not to update > those fields, and avoid duplicating approximately 95 lines of code. > It means a change in a core mm function, though, so if folks thinks > its too ugly, we can make our own copy in fs/ext4. > > Opinions? Andrew, as someone who often weighs in on fs and mm issues, > what do you think? My preference would be to make the change to > mm/page-writeback.c, controlled by a flag which ext4 would set be set > by fs/ext4 before it calls write_cache_pages(). I agree. But I'm still not quite sure if that requirement is unique to ext4 anyway. Give me some time to dive into the writeback code again, haven't been there for quite a while. -- 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
