xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill no-op buf macros
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:43:49 -0500
Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060809012444.GS2114946@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <44CC2A55.6030207@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20060731090815.B2280998@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060809012444.GS2114946@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Macintosh/20060719)
David Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:08:15AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 10:41:09PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
It looks like these macros are not particularly interesting... this patch kills them.
Hmm, I'm not sure about some of these..

#define XFS_BUF_BUSY(bp)        do { } while (0)
#define XFS_BUF_ISBUSY(bp)      (1)
This ones used on 2.4, I'd like to get Daves thoughts on whether
we do the right thing here based on his buffer cache fu.

XFS_BUF_ISBUSY() is only ever used in ASSERT() statements, so I
think that can go. On 2.4:

#define XFS_BUF_BUSY(bp) ((bp)->b_flags |= XBF_FORCEIO)

The XBF_FORCEIO affects how we do partial page I/O on 2.4, but is
unused on 2.6. On 2.4, if the flag is set, we ignore the
buffer_uptodate() status of the buffers on the page and re-read all
the buffers in the range specified.  For writes, we always write all
the buffers on the page.

Hm, 2.4 just seemed so old by now I forgot all about it :) Sorry about that, thanks for the comments, I'll re-jigger taking this (and the rest of your comments) into account.

Thanks,

-Eric


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>