On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:50:59PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 10:21 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:53:14AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > diff -Nurp linux-2.6.24-rc6-git5/fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c > > > linux/fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c > > > --- linux-2.6.24-rc6-git5/fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c 2007-12-28 > > > 10:28:33.000000000 -0600 > > > +++ linux/fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c 2007-12-28 10:37:30.000000000 -0600 > > > @@ -360,6 +360,7 @@ static int metapage_writepage(struct pag > > > struct metapage *mp; > > > int redirty = 0; > > > sector_t lblock; > > > + int nr_underway = 0; > > > sector_t pblock; > > > sector_t next_block = 0; > > > sector_t page_start; > > > @@ -371,6 +372,7 @@ static int metapage_writepage(struct pag > > > (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - inode->i_blkbits); > > > BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page)); > > > BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page)); > > > > This line should be moved below: > > > + set_page_writeback(page); > > No. set_page_writeback() needs to be called before submit_bio() is > called.
Ah yes. > I don't think there is any harm in calling set_page_writeback(), > redirty_page_for_writeback() and end_page_writeback() in the case where > there is no I/O to submit, and some dirty data cannot be written. It is > consistent with what happens in __block_write_full_page(). > > It's also possible that some part of the page was written, and another > part cannot be, causing the page to be redirtied. You are right. I revisited the code and there's nothing wrong with your patch :-) Regards, Fengguang -- 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/
