From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Magenheimer Subject: RE: linux-next: manual merge of the cleancache tree with Linus' tree Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8e934520-3ed7-470a-ada4-80ae2b41ae60@default> References: <20110324135524.261bb5a9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20110323205615.6984f974.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org > >>> Is this stuff going to be merged into Linus' tree this time round= ? Hi Stephen -- Still TBD. Some discussion has occurred offlist. > >> I did the cleancache_flush_page() before the > delete_from_page_cache(), > >> in case the delete_from_page_cache() freed the page. =C2=A0I didn'= t > actually > >> check whether that makes sense though. > > > > I am not sure cleancache's put and flush semantic. > > If I understand rightly with old __remove_from_page_cache's comment= , > > maybe cleancache_flush_page is to invalidate the page Hi Minchan and Stephen -- I will take a close look at this and possibly ask Chris Mason to take a look as well (since these hooks were placed by Chris in 2008 and this is the first significant change around the hooks since then). I think as long as the page is still locked and the mapping remains valid, the ordering may not matter, but will confirm and test. =20 > Dan, one more thing. >=20 > #define cleancache_fs_enabled_mapping(_mapping) \ > (mapping->host->i_sb->cleancache_poolid >=3D 0) >=20 > One is "_mapping", another is "mapping" Oops! Nice catch, Minchan! Will fix (using C, per Andrew's reply). Thanks, Dan