From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: PATCH: rewrite of invalidate_inode_pages References: From: "Juan J. Quintela" In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu, 11 May 2000 14:47:25 -0700 (PDT)" Date: 11 May 2000 23:56:16 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu List-ID: >>>>> "linus" == Linus Torvalds writes: linus> On 11 May 2000, Juan J. Quintela wrote: >> - we change one page_cache_release to put_page in truncate_inode_pages >> (people find lost when they see a get_page without the correspondent >> put_page, and put_page and page_cache_release are synonimops) linus> put_page() is _not_ synonymous with page_cache_release()! linus> Imagine a time in the not too distant future when the page cache linus> granularity is 8kB or 16kB due to better IO performance (possibly linus> controlled by a config option), and page_cache_release() will do an linus> "order=1" or "order=2" page free.. Linus, I agree with you here, but we do a get_page 5 lines before, I think that if I do a get_page I should do a put_page to liberate it. But I can be wrong, and then I would like to know if in the future, it could be posible to do a get_page and liberate it with a page_cache_release? That was my point. Sorry for the bad wording. Later, Juan. PD. As always, I apreciate a lot your comments. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy -- 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/