On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 11:09, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:37 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > > Yes. page->private is assumed for the bufferhead usage. Do you really > > need for handling page->private for non-bufferhead usage ? > > For what it's worth, I'm working on some changes to jfs that will use > page->private for non-bufferhead usage for metadata, but I won't be > using a generic writepage, so it's not an issue for me.
Nope. it would be an issue for you, since jfs uses mpage_writepages() which uses the same code - which thinks page->private as bufferhead. > > mpage.c already assumes page->private implies bufferheads, so it's not > completely generic. Would implementing this as nobh_write_full_page, to > complement block_write_full_page, make sense? I guess, it can be done. So to really deal with this, we need to come up with generic writepage/writepages interfaces which doesn't deal with bufferheads. Thanks, Badari - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
