On 8/10/00, 9:37:24 AM, Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
regarding Re: Tailmerging - more details:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
[ please let me know if you want anything in the cut text answered ;-) ]
If you've got anything to say about map/unmap, something I haven't
On 7/30/00, 7:14:16 AM, Daniel Phillips
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: Questions about
the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0:
Daniel Phillips wrote:
There are two obvious ways to do filesystem-specific special handling of
the
tail block: (1) in the 'read actor' that does the actual
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
I don't know exactly what ReiserFS does - I just heard Hans mention the term
'tail merging' and I could see that it was a good idea.
I'll give the quick and dirty answer, if people want more details, let me
know. In 2.2, reiserfs_file_write
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
In both releases, there is locking on the tail to prevent races, and we
don't bother with tails on files 16k (configurable).
What granularity do you have? (for tail size, that is).
From 1
Hello everyone,
I've hit a few bumps with the addres space operations, and I suspect the
other journaled filesystems will have similar issues.
generic_commit_write changes the inode-i_size, but doesn't mark the inode
dirty. Since reiserfs logs inodes instead of calling mark_inode_dirty, it
is
-Original Message-
From: Stephen C. Tweedie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:55:39 -0400, Chris Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
All true. But shouldn't I be able to write function to reuse a
buffer_head
for a different block without freeing it? I realize
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans Reiser
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:14:03 +0400, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hans, you didn't mention a journal call that happens on sync, or
