Re: PATCH: rewrite of invalidate_inode_pages

From: Juan J. Quintela (quintela@fi.udc.es)
Date: Thu May 11 2000 - 16:56:16 EST


>>>>> "linus" == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST