Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3?

["Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:32:48 +0300, Hans Reiser <reiser@idiom.com> said:

> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> BTW, I thought Hans was talking about places that can't sleep (because of
>> some not schedule-aware lock) when he said "place that cannot call
>> balance_dirty()".

> You were correct.  I think Stephen and I are missing in communicating here.

Fine, I was just looking at it from the VFS point of view, not the
specific filesystem.  In the worst case, a filesystem can always simply
defer marking the buffer as dirty until after the locking window has
passed, so there's obviously no fundamental problem with having a
blocking mark_buffer_dirty.  If we want a non-blocking version too, with
the requirement that the filesystem then to a manual rebalance once it
is safe to do so, that will work fine too.

--Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.nl.linux.org/Linux-MM/