PS. On 04/23/12 00:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Rather than specifying XBF_MAPPED for almost all buffers, introduce XBF_UNMAPPED for the couple of users that use unmapped buffers. Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 28 +++++++++++++--------------- fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h | 4 ++-- fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c | 10 +++++----- fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 1 + fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 4 ++-- fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c | 6 ------ fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c | 3 +-- 7 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c @@ -707,7 +707,6 @@ xfs_buf_set_empty( bp->b_length = numblks; bp->b_io_length = numblks; bp->b_bn = XFS_BUF_DADDR_NULL; - bp->b_flags&= ~XBF_MAPPED; }
I know that bp->baddr is set to NULL and denotes that this is not mapped, but why not set the XBF_UNMAPPED?
static inline struct page * @@ -759,7 +758,6 @@ xfs_buf_associate_memory( bp->b_io_length = BTOBB(len); bp->b_length = BTOBB(buflen); - bp->b_flags |= XBF_MAPPED; return 0; }
I think the answer is no, but can XBF_UNMAPPED be set and leaked here? Thanks --Mark Tinguely _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
