From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:49:43 +0100 (CET) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: (reiserfs) Re: RFC: Re: journal ports for 2.3? In-Reply-To: <38620F5A.F4E6301A@idiom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hans Reiser Cc: "Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Chris Mason , reiserfs@devlinux.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds List-ID: On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Hans Reiser wrote: >If reiserfs had good SMP, you could stall it anywhere, and the code >could handle that. But we don't, and I bet others also don't, and we >won't have it for some time even though we are working on it. I completly understand that we need also an atomic mark_buffer_dirty and to call buffer_dirty from some other place. But IMHO there's no one good reason to break all the old rock solid filesystems like ext2 just because there's the need of a new feature. I am not proposing to not provide a way to atomically marking a buffer dirty. I propose only to not change the semantic of the function called `mark_buffer_dirty()' as it happened now. If you want the atomic version just recall __mark_buffer_dirty() and use balance_dirty() by hand as soon as you can (after releasing your SMP locks). We can trivially replace mark_buffer_dirty() with __mark_buffer_dirty() with an automated script inside smart/SMP filesystems that wants to continue to use the current 2.3.x semantic of mark_buffer_dirty(). Andrea -- 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/