From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932302AbVLHTxm (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:53:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932304AbVLHTxl (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:53:41 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:53619 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932302AbVLHTxl (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:53:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 20:54:34 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Gleb Natapov , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Petr Vandrovec , Nick Piggin , Badari Pulavarty , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: set_page_dirty vs set_page_dirty_lock Message-ID: <20051208195433.GY26185@suse.de> References: <20051208190913.GA28482@mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 08 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote: > It can be very inconvenient (I don't know what to do for drivers/scsi/sg.c > than set_page_dirty and hope for the best, since it cannot wait for a lock > where it needs to). But I'm afraid you do have the very case where > set_page_dirty_lock is appropriate. See bio_set_pages_dirty() in fs/bio.c and the framework for handling those (notably bio_dirty_fn()). > Many would be pleased if we could manage without set_page_dirty_lock. Indeed, would make life easier there as well.. -- Jens Axboe