Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make BH_Unwritten a first class bufferhead flag
From: Nathan Scott <nscott@aconex.com>
Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20070108225402.GA24787@infradead.org>
References: <20070108224932.GZ33919298@melbourne.sgi.com>
	 <20070108225402.GA24787@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Aconex
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:14:34 +1100
Message-Id: <1168298075.32113.62.camel@edge>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1082
Lines: 27

On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 22:54 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> this doesn't look like a full first class flag to me yet.  Don't
> we need to check for buffer_unwritten in the places we're checking
> for buffer_delay so we can stop setting buffer_delay for unwritten
> buffers?

Yep, that does need to be done.  The first of the two calls
to set_buffer_delay can be removed from __xfs_get_blocks also
(currently there is an implied association between Delay and
Unwritten, which should be removed now).

I have a vague memory of some magic sysrq code (from 2.4 days)
which counted BH state on a page - if that still exists it'd
need to be updated too, but I can't seem to find it in current
2.6 kernels (used to live in buffer.c in ye olde 2.4 days).  It
probably left us around the time of PG_private's introduction.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

-
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/