On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:02:22AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > The PG_dirty bit is cleared in add_to_swap_cache() and
> > __add_to_page_cache() so this is kind of redundant, but the
> > detach_page hook is good news in general.
>
> Oww, good that you alert me to this bug. It makes no sense to
> clear the bit there since we may have dirty pages in both the
> filecache and the swapcache...
>
> (well, it doesn't cause any bugs, but it could add some nasty
> surprises later when we change the code so we can have dirty
> pages in all the caches)
This actually went in somewhat recently, in 2.3.99pre something (where
something is around 4 IIRC). This fixed a bug in ramfs, since
previously the dirty bit was never being cleared.
At the time ramfs was the *only* place using PG_dirty - it looked like
it was just a misleading name for something analagous to BH_protected.
Obviously that's not true any more. What does the PG_dirty bit mean
these days?
-- David Gibson, Technical Support Engineer, Linuxcare, Inc. +61 2 6262 8990 dgibson@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.- 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 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:18 EST