From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:20:19 +1000 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH] ramfs fixes Message-ID: <20000620132019.A28309@tweedle.linuxcare.com.au> References: <20000619182802.B22551@tweedle.linuxcare.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:02:22AM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: David Gibson , linux-fsdevel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:02:22AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, David Gibson wrote: > > > The PG_dirty bit is cleared in add_to_swap_cache() and > > __add_to_page_cache() so this is kind of redundant, but the > > detach_page hook is good news in general. > > Oww, good that you alert me to this bug. It makes no sense to > clear the bit there since we may have dirty pages in both the > filecache and the swapcache... > > (well, it doesn't cause any bugs, but it could add some nasty > surprises later when we change the code so we can have dirty > pages in all the caches) This actually went in somewhat recently, in 2.3.99pre something (where something is around 4 IIRC). This fixed a bug in ramfs, since previously the dirty bit was never being cleared. At the time ramfs was the *only* place using PG_dirty - it looked like it was just a misleading name for something analagous to BH_protected. Obviously that's not true any more. What does the PG_dirty bit mean these days? -- David Gibson, Technical Support Engineer, Linuxcare, Inc. +61 2 6262 8990 dgibson@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. Support for the revolution. -- 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.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/