To: dhowells@redhat.com
CC: akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, davidm@snapgear.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-reply-to: <24382.1110210081@redhat.com> (message from David Howells on Mon,
	07 Mar 2005 15:41:21 +0000)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] BDI: Provide backing device capability information
References: <E1D8K3T-00056q-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>  <20050307041047.59c24dec.akpm@osdl.org> <20050307034747.4c6e7277.akpm@osdl.org> <20050307033734.5cc75183.akpm@osdl.org> <20050303123448.462c56cd.akpm@osdl.org> <20050302135146.2248c7e5.akpm@osdl.org> <20050302090734.5a9895a3.akpm@osdl.org> <9420.1109778627@redhat.com> <31789.1109799287@redhat.com> <13767.1109857095@redhat.com> <9268.1110194624@redhat.com> <9741.1110195784@redhat.com> <9947.1110196314@redhat.com> <22447.1110204304@redhat.com> <24382.1110210081@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <E1D8KPt-00058Y-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:45:09 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 932
Lines: 23

> > Wouldn't it be better to reverse the meaning of BDI_CAP_ACCOUNT_DIRTY
> > and BDI_CAP_WRITEBACK_DIRTY (BDI_CAP_NO_ACCOUNT_DIRTY...)?  That way
> > out of tree filesystems that implicitly zero bdi->memory_backed
> > wouldn't _silently_ break.  E.g. fuse does this, though it would not
> > actually break since it doesn't dirty any pages currently.  I have no
> > idea whether there are other filesystems that are affected.
> 
> It shouldn't silently break... It will refuse to compile. I renamed
> "memory_backed" to "capabilities".

This will silently break:

static struct backing_dev_info my_bdi = {
       .ra_pages = MY_RA,
       .unplug_io_fn = default_unplug_io_fn,
};

Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/