> > Wouldn't it be better to reverse the meaning of BDI_CAP_ACCOUNT_DIRTY
> > and BDI_CAP_WRITEBACK_DIRTY (BDI_CAP_NO_ACCOUNT_DIRTY...)? That way
> > out of tree filesystems that implicitly zero bdi->memory_backed
> > wouldn't _silently_ break. E.g. fuse does this, though it would not
> > actually break since it doesn't dirty any pages currently. I have no
> > idea whether there are other filesystems that are affected.
>
> It shouldn't silently break... It will refuse to compile. I renamed
> "memory_backed" to "capabilities".
This will silently break:
static struct backing_dev_info my_bdi = {
.ra_pages = MY_RA,
.unplug_io_fn = default_unplug_io_fn,
};
Miklos
-
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/
