Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>
> > I think in the context you are inventig the proposed function,
> > the drivers has allways an inode at hand. And contrary to what Linus
>
> Read the patch. Almost all cases are of the "loop over partitions of foo"
> kind
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> I think in the context you are inventig the proposed function,
> the drivers has allways an inode at hand. And contrary to what Linus
Read the patch. Almost all cases are of the "loop over partitions of foo"
kind.
> says, drivers not just know abo
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > Fine with me. Actually in _all_ cases execept cdrom.c it's preceded by
> > either sync_dev() or fsync_dev(). What do you think about pulling that
> > into the same function? Actually, that's what I've done in namespace
>
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > PS: last time I've separated that part of patch was a couple months
> > ago. See if something similar to the variant below would be OK with
> > you (I'll rediff it):
>
> This one looks fine.
Er
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Fine with me. Actually in _all_ cases execept cdrom.c it's preceded by
> > either sync_dev() or fsync_dev(). What do you think about pulling that
> > into the same function?
>
> I'd actually pre
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> PS: last time I've separated that part of patch was a couple months
> ago. See if something similar to the variant below would be OK with
> you (I'll rediff it):
This one looks fine.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Fine with me. Actually in _all_ cases execept cdrom.c it's preceded by
> either sync_dev() or fsync_dev(). What do you think about pulling that
> into the same function?
I'd actually prefer not. I don't think it makes sense from a conceptual
standp
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Fine with me. Actually in _all_ cases execept cdrom.c it's preceded by
> either sync_dev() or fsync_dev(). What do you think about pulling that
> into the same function? Actually, that's what I've done in namespace
> patch (name being invalidate_dev(
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Each of these places is an oopsable race with umount. We can't fix them
> > without touching a lot of drivers. However, we can make the future fix
> > easier if we put the above into a helper functio
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Each of these places is an oopsable race with umount. We can't fix them
> without touching a lot of drivers. However, we can make the future fix
> easier if we put the above into a helper function. Patch below does that.
I don't like the name "ream_
A lot of drivers does the following:
sb = get_super(dev);
if (sb)
invalidate_inodes(sb);
Each of these places is an oopsable race with umount. We can't fix them
without touching a lot of drivers. However, we can make the future fix
easier if we put the above into a
11 matches
Mail list logo
