From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 18:25:29 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: tracking shared dirty pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060525135534.20941.91650.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060525135555.20941.36612.sendpatchset@lappy> <24747.1148653985@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <12042.1148976035@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <7966.1149006374@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: David Howells , Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Martin Bligh , Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds List-ID: On Tue, 30 May 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2006, David Howells wrote: > > > What's wrong with my suggestion anyway? > > Adds yet another method with functionality that for the most part > is the same as set_page_dirty(). Your original question, whether they could be combined, was a good one; and I hoped you'd be right. But I agree with David, they cannot, unless we sacrifice the guarantee that one or the other is there to give. It's much like the relationship between ->prepare_write and ->commit_write. Hugh -- 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-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org