Re: Stale super_blocks in 2.2

From: Phil Auld (
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 17:34:59 EST

Alan Cox wrote:
> > does not do anything to invalidate the buffers associated with the
> > unmounted device. We then rely on disk change detection on a
> > subsequent mount to prevent us from seeing the old super_block.
> 2.2 yes, 2.4 no

That can be a problem for fiber channel devices. I saw some issues with
invalidate_buffers and page caching discussed in 2.4 space. Any reasons
come to mind why I shouldn't call invalidate on the the way down instead
(or in addition)?


Philip R. Auld Kernel Engineer
Egenera Corp.
165 Forest St, Marlboro, MA 01752 (508)786-9444
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:22 EST