Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > does not do anything to invalidate the buffers associated with the
> > unmounted device. We then rely on disk change detection on a
> > subsequent mount to prevent us from seeing the old super_block.
>
> 2.2 yes, 2.4 no
That can be a problem for fiber channel devices. I saw some issues with
invalidate_buffers and page caching discussed in 2.4 space. Any reasons
come to mind why I shouldn't call invalidate on the the way down instead
(or in addition)?
Thanks,
Phil
------------------------------------------------------
Philip R. Auld Kernel Engineer
Egenera Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
165 Forest St, Marlboro, MA 01752 (508)786-9444
-
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/
