Chris Mason wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> > After digging a little deeper I can see that using the read actor
> > won't work because the read actor doesn't take the inode, or
> >
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 act
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow, but shouldn't mounting increase the fs module count?
> How else would you do module count management for file systems ?
I think I understand what Alexander is saying - it is ok to not increment
the module count on kern_mount becaus
"Bill Rugolsky Jr." wrote:
> In an effort to document some of the changes that have gone into 2.4
> (particularly the VFS/MM changes), I'd like to mirror the entire
> linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, and linux-kernel archives going back at least
> to the start of 2.3.x.
Speaking of documenting, I saw rec
