On Friday 03 April 2009 03:55:05 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 03:47:20AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Well they now are quite well filesystem defined. We no longer take > > the page lock before calling them. Not saying it's perfect, but if > > the backing fs is just using a known subset of ones that work > > (like loop does). > > The page lock doesn't matter. What matters is locks protecting the > io. Like the XFS iolock or cluster locks in the cluster filesystems, > and you will get silent data corruption that way. Hmm, I can see i_mutex being a problem, but can't see how a filesystem takes any other locks down that chain? Naturally a random in-kernel user misses other important things, so yes a simple write sounds like the best option. > > Probably yes. But it seems like it should have more discussion IMO > > (unless it has already been had and I missed it). > > This came up plenty of times. I mean, unless the discussion agreed on write_one_page being the right API to add, then it should not be added in fscache and fscache should just take a workaround for the meantime. > > I don't think "write_one_page" sounds like a particularly good new > > API addition. > > I also thing it's not a nice one. I still haven't seen a really good > explanation of why it can't just use plain ->write Good question. -- 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
