Re: [PATCH 1/2] readahead: simplify ra->size testing

2005-03-03 Thread Andrew Morton
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > So... the big "how it all works" comment needs an update.. > > Same patch, comment updated. Thanks, is nice. But I actually meant this comment, from readahead.c: * * When readahead is in the off state (size == -1UL

Re: [PATCH 1/2] readahead: simplify ra->size testing

2005-03-03 Thread Oleg Nesterov
Andrew Morton wrote: > > So... the big "how it all works" comment needs an update.. Same patch, comment updated. Currently page_cache_readahead() treats ra->size == 0 (first read) and ra->size == -1 (ra_off was called) separately, but does exactly the same in both cases. With this patch we may

Re: [PATCH 1/2] readahead: simplify ra->size testing

2005-03-02 Thread Andrew Morton
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On top of "readahead: cleanup blockable_page_cache_readahead()", > see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110927049500942 > > Currently page_cache_readahead() treats ra->size == 0 (first read) > and ra->size == -1 (ra_off was called) sepa

[PATCH 1/2] readahead: simplify ra->size testing

2005-03-02 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On top of "readahead: cleanup blockable_page_cache_readahead()", see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110927049500942 Currently page_cache_readahead() treats ra->size == 0 (first read) and ra->size == -1 (ra_off was called) separately, but does exactly the same in both cases. With t