"Juan J. Quintela" wrote:
>
> >>>>> "daniel" == Daniel Phillips writes:
> daniel> A comment on create_empty_buffers: it takes inode as a parameter and
> daniel> only uses that to set the b_dev. Shouldn't it just take dev as a
> daniel> parameter instead of inode?
>
> talking about that, all the calls to create_emty_buffers call it with
> blocksize = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize, if we are going to do the
> cleanup, it is better to do it well :))))
Yes, so either of these would be more consistent:
create_empty_buffers (page, inode);
or
create_empty_buffers (page, dev, blocksize);
As a primitive, I like the second one more because it's not tied
specifically to an inode. Why should a memory_operations mapping
always have an inode? For now I'm just going to export
create_empty_buffers as it is and if it changes later, ok fine, this
work is experimental anyway.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
