On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok, this contains one of the fixes for the dirty inode buffer list (the
> other fix is pending, simply because I still want to understand why it
> would be needed at all). Al?
>
> Also, it has the final installment of the PageDirty handling, and now
>
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:17:07PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > And this is not just a "it happens to be like this" kind of thing. It
> > _has_ to be like this, because every time we call clear_inode() we are
> > going to physically fre
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> dummy.c: In function `dummy_init_module':
> dummy.c:103: invalid type argument of `->'
Known bug. They say the fix is in Linus's patch queue.
--- include/linux/module.h~ Tue Dec 5 00:53:23 2000
+++ include/linux/module.h Tue Dec 5 17:24:47 2000
@@ -345,7 +345,7
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> OK, I see - this isn't easy at all. You start the io if necessary, and
> some time later it completes.
Right. You don't know when. Once completed, it will unlock the page and
wake up waiters. It will also set PG_Uptodate if the read was successfu
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And this is not just a "it happens to be like this" kind of thing. It
> _has_ to be like this, because every time we call clear_inode() we are
> going to physically free the memory associated with the inode very soon
> afterwards. Which means that _an
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Stephen is _wrong_ wrt fsync().
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Think about it for a second. How the hell could you even _call_ fsync() on
> > a file that no longer exists, and has no file handles open to it?
> ^^
> clear_inode(
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So Stephen is right wrt fsync() (it will not get that stuff on disk).
> > However, it's not a bug - if that crap will not end up on disk we
> > will only win.
>
> Stephen is _wrong_ wrt fsync().
>
> Why?
>
> Think about it for a second. How the h
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 09:48:51AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >
> > That is still buggy. We MUST NOT invalidate the inode buffers unless
> > i_nlink == 0, because otherwise a subsequent open() and fsync() will
> > have forgotten what bu
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Sigh. OK, let me put it that way:
>
> * we _can_ have dirty blocks on the list when inode gets freed.
Agreed.
> * no, CAN_UNUSE will not see them.
CAN_UNUSE() is not used at all for the final forcible removal of an inode
that has no
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Get your acts together, guys. Stop blathering and frothing at the mouth.
> The only time clear_inode() should be called is (a) when we prune the
> inode cache - and we CLEARLY cannot prune an inode if it still has dirty
> blocks associated with it and
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 08:00:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > >
> > This _is_ what clear_inode() does in pre5 (and in pre4, for that matter):
> >
> > void clear_inode(struct inode *i
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> That is still buggy. We MUST NOT invalidate the inode buffers unless
> i_nlink == 0, because otherwise a subsequent open() and fsync() will
> have forgotten what buffers are dirty, and hence will fail to
> synchronise properly with the disk.
Cor
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 08:00:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> This _is_ what clear_inode() does in pre5 (and in pre4, for that matter):
>
> void clear_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> if (!list_empty(&inode->
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> NOTE! There's another change to "writepage()" semantics than just dropping
> the "struct file": the new writepage() is supposed to mirror the logic of
> readpage(), and unlock the page when it is done with it. This allows the
> VM system more visibility into what IO is pend
> Hello,
> The drivers/net/dummy.c compile error still exists..Looks like the
> module.h patch wasn't included.
Its in Linus queue.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok, this contains one of the fixes for the dirty inode buffer list (the
> other fix is pending, simply because I still want to understand why it
> would be needed at all). Al?
I've run the same test suite against vanilla test12-pre5 on two machines for
five hours. On ex
The following fixes to many arguments error in fs/udf/inode.c for
test12-pre5
--- fs/udf/inode.c.orig Mon Dec 4 23:34:23 2000
+++ fs/udf/inode.c Tue Dec 5 00:26:59 2000
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@
mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
udf_release_data(bh);
- inode->i_data.a_ops->writepage
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So? Why wouldn't clear_inode() get rid of it?
It will. Mea culpa. However, other reasons for taking the bh of freed
block from the list still stand. IOW, consider that part as an
optimization.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Ok, this contains one of the fixes for the dirty inode buffer list (the
> > other fix is pending, simply because I still want to understand why it
> > would be needed at all). Al?
>
> See previous
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok, this contains one of the fixes for the dirty inode buffer list (the
> other fix is pending, simply because I still want to understand why it
> would be needed at all). Al?
See previous posting. BTW, -pre5 doesn't do the right thing in clear_in
20 matches
Mail list logo
