On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:24:47PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:08:29AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:05:35AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > 3) A version which (optionally via a flag in the wbc structure)
> > > instructs write_cache_pages() to not pursue those updates. This has
> > > not been written yet.
> >
> > This one sounds best to me (although we'd have to actualy see it..)
>
> something like the below ?
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/writeback.h b/include/linux/writeback.h
> index bd91987..7599af2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/writeback.h
> +++ b/include/linux/writeback.h
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ struct writeback_control {
> unsigned for_writepages:1; /* This is a writepages() call */
> unsigned range_cyclic:1; /* range_start is cyclic */
> unsigned more_io:1; /* more io to be dispatched */
> + /* flags which control the write_cache_pages behaviour */
> + int writeback_flags;
> };
I don't see a definition for WB_NO_NRWRITE_UPDATE and
WB_NO_INDEX_UPDATE in your patch?
Given the structure seems to be using bitfields for all of the other
fields, why not do this instead?
unsigned no_nrwrite_update:1;
unsigned no_index_update:1;
Personally, I'm old school, and prefer using an int flag field and
using #define's for flags, but the rest of the structure is using
bitfields for flags, and it's probably better to be consistent...
- Ted
--
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
