From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15 v2] mm: add invalidatepage_range address space operation Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:56:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20120905155648.GA15985@infradead.org> References: <1346451711-1931-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1346451711-1931-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <20120904164316.6e058cbe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, hughd@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org To: Luk?? Czerner Return-path: Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:50299 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753156Ab2IEP4w (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:56:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:36:00AM -0400, Luk?? Czerner wrote: > However if we would want to keep ->invalidatepage_range() and > ->invalidatepage() completely separate then we would have to have > separate truncate_inode_pages_range() and truncate_pagecache_range() > as well for the separation to actually matter. And IMO this would be > much worse... What's the problem with simply changing the ->invalidatepage prototype to always pass the range and updating all instances for it?