On Thursday November 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/foo/ > > > > bdi-task-dirty.patch > > bdi-sysfs.patch > > bdi-min.patch > > bdi-max.patch > > > > > > Is my current rather experimental stack, I just wrote the max part after > > having slept on it. I'm not fond of the multiplication there, but I > > dno't see a way around it. > > > > Compile tested only. > > I've done some testing on these patches and did some changes. So here > they go. > > Thanks, > Miklos > > --------- > Subject: mm: sysfs: expose the BDI object in sysfs > > Provide a place in sysfs for the backing_dev_info object. > This allows us to see and set the various BDI specific variables.
You don't say what the place is, and I'm not quite familiar enough with sysfs internals to figure it out my self. Help? And while I was looking I noticed that bdi_register (and bdi_init_fmt) takes a second argument 'parent', which is always NULL, and which is undocumented as to purpose. If no-one would ever add another call to bdi_register, why have the second arg, and if they might, how would they know what to put there? Finally, the omission of NFS bothers me - and makes me wonder if the choice of name in sysfs is appropriate. Would a program ever want to generate the name (in sysfs) for a particular bdi? If so, how would it do it. It seems to me after a fairly quick look that a bdi is always associated with a device number. For block devices the device number is obvious. For NFS and FUSE, the device number is an anon device number allocated at mount time. Maybe the name of the bdi should be based on that number. Then it would be possible to map directly from e.g. a file to the bdi that the file would be written to. NeilBrown - 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/
