From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14453.54081.644647.363133@dukat.scot.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:51:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? In-Reply-To: <38750A00.A4EE572A@idiom.com> References: <38750A00.A4EE572A@idiom.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hans Reiser Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Chris Mason , reiserfs@devlinux.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds List-ID: Hi, On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:32:48 +0300, Hans Reiser 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/