Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756251Ab1DOOug (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:50:36 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:38146 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755304Ab1DOOud convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:50:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <83ef8b69-f041-43e6-a5a9-880ff3da26f2@default> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:47:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Magenheimer To: Minchan Kim Cc: Chris Mason , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, tytso@mit.edu, mfasheh@suse.com, jlbec@evilplan.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, hch@infradead.org, ngupta@vflare.org, jeremy@goop.org, JBeulich@novell.com, Kurt Hackel , npiggin@kernel.dk, Dave Mccracken , riel@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com, Konrad Wilk , mel@csn.ul.ie, yinghan@google.com, gthelen@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: RE: [PATCH V8 4/8] mm/fs: add hooks to support cleancache References: <20110414211732.GA27761@ca-server1.us.oracle.com BANLkTimEbtY8F6bpsfhfQ770ao9Hn7Spww@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.4.1.0 (410211) [OL 12.0.6550.5003] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Source-IP: acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4DA85AE9.0020:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1240 Lines: 36 Hi Minchan -- > First of all, thanks for resolving conflict with my patch. You're welcome! As I pointed out offlist, yours was the first change in MM that caused any semantic changes to the cleancache core hooks patch since before 2.6.18. > Before I suggested a thing about cleancache_flush_page, > cleancache_flush_inode. > > what's the meaning of flush's semantic? > I thought it means invalidation. > AFAIC, how about change flush with invalidate? I'm not sure the words "flush" and "invalidate" are defined precisely or used consistently everywhere in computer science, but I think that "invalidate" is to destroy a "pointer" to some data, but not necessarily destroy the data itself. And "flush" means to actually remove the data. So one would "invalidate a mapping" but one would "flush a cache". Since cleancache_flush_page and cleancache_flush_inode semantically remove data from cleancache, I think flush is a better name than invalidate. Does that make sense? Thanks, Dan -- 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/