On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:29:21 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) we're now calling try_to_release_page() with a potentially-dirty > page, whereas it was previously clean. > > I wouldn't expect ->releasepage() implementations to go looking at > PG_Dirty, because that's not what they're suppoed to be interested in. > But they might do, dunno. Still an issue, probably minor. > b) If invalidate_complete_page2() failed due to, say, dirty buffer_heads > then we now have a clean page with dirty buffers. That is an illegal > state and the page will leak permanently. > > I _think_ that's what the was_dirty logic is in there for: to > preserve the correct page-vs-buffers dirtiness coherency. But I'd need > to do some 2.5.x changelog-dumpster-diving to be sure. no, that's bs. The patch looks OK from that POV: try_to_release_page() will be able to clear clean buffers from a dirty page. And in fact if it did that, it will then clean the page for us (see test_clear_page_dirty() in try_to_free_buffers()). But we still need the clear_page_dirty() in invalidate_complete_page2() in case we didn't call try_to_release_page() at all. > Trond, please define precisely and completely and without reference to > the existing implementation: what behaviour does NFS want? But this would be nice. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
