On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
>
> The test I did initially was the following:
>
> if(!atomic_read(&bh->b_count) &&
> (destroy_dirty_buffers || !buffer_dirty(bh))
> && ! (bh->b_page && bh->b_page->mapping)
> )
>
> That is, I was explicitely checking for a mapped page. It worked well, too.
> Is this more reasonable?
I'd suggest just doing this instead (warning: cut-and-paste in xterm, so
white-space damage):
--- linux/fs/buffer.c.old Wed Dec 20 17:50:56 2000
+++ linux/fs/buffer.c Thu Dec 21 16:42:11 2000
@@ -639,8 +639,13 @@
continue;
for (i = nr_buffers_type[nlist]; i > 0 ; bh = bh_next, i--) {
bh_next = bh->b_next_free;
+
+ /* Another device? */
if (bh->b_dev != dev)
continue;
+ /* Part of a mapping? */
+ if (bh->b_page->mapping)
+ continue;
if (buffer_locked(bh)) {
atomic_inc(&bh->b_count);
spin_unlock(&lru_list_lock);
which just ignores mapped buffers entirely (and doesn't test for
bh->b_page being non-NULL, because that shouldn't be allowed anyway).
Linus
-
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.org/lkml/
