On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 12:59:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > The second is that bh's are two things:
> >
> > - a cacheing object
> > - an io buffer
>
> Actually, they really aren't.
>
> They kind of _used_ to be, but more and more they've moved away from that
> historical use. Check in particular the page cache, and as a really
> extreme case the swap cache version of the page cache.
Yes. And that exactly why I think it's ugly to have the left-over
caching stuff in the same data sctruture as the IO buffer.
> It certainly _used_ to be true that "bh"s were actually first-class memory
> management citizens, and actually had a data buffer and a cache associated
> with them. And because of that historical baggage, that's how many people
> still think of them.
I do even know that the pagecache is our primary cache now :)
Anyway having that caching cruft still in is ugly.
> > This is not really an clean appropeach, and I would really like to
> > get away from it.
>
> Trust me, you really _can_ get away from it. It's not designed into the
> bh's at all. You can already just allocate a single (or multiple) "struct
> buffer_head" and just use them as IO objects, and give them your _own_
> pointers to the IO buffer etc.
So true. Exactly because of that the data structures should become
seperated also.
Christoph
--
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.
-
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/
