Hi,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:42:48PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
In tracking this down I became rather confused because as far as I can
tell *nothing* (except ramfs) ever sets PG_dirty (grepping for
PG_dirty and SetPageDirty). What am I missing?
Not much, but the new VM code in 2.4 is
David Gibson wrote:
I've discovered that my ramfs limits patch has been broken for some
time due to a slight change in the handling of PG_dirty (specifically
it is cleared in truncate_complete_page() before the call to
remove_inode_page().
In tracking this down I became rather confused
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:42:48PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
[..] What am I missing?
You should rename it to PG_protected.
Andrea
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 04:54:16PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
[..] The
one piece of that missing [..]
Ok, I was just looking the context of your diff.
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:42:48PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
[..] What am I missing?
You should rename it to PG_protected.
Why?
PG_dirty is a perfectly adequate name. If we have a method
to clean the page, it
