From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:47:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Warning on memory offline (and possible in usual migration?) In-Reply-To: <20080423025358.GA9751@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20080414145806.c921c927.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080422045205.GH21993@wotan.suse.de> <20080422165608.7ab7026b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080422094352.GB23770@wotan.suse.de> <20080423004804.GA14134@wotan.suse.de> <20080423114107.b8df779c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080423025358.GA9751@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , GOTO List-ID: On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > In the __set_page_dirty case in fs/buffer.c, we _do_ know that the page > has buffers and that it would be wrong to have a situation where the > page is !uptodate at this point. > > Is that clear? Or have I explained it poorly? In other words __set_page_dirty sets the page dirty and only warns if the page has no buffers and is not uptodate. -- 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