Re: [PATCH] dirty pages in memory & co.

["Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On Mon, 10 May 1999 17:01:50 -0400 (EDT), "Benjamin C.R. LaHaise"
<blah@kvack.org> said:

> Hmmm, it shouldn't be a problem if the write blocks the reading of the
> page and PG_uptodate isn't set.  This conflicts with the current
> assumption in generic_file_read that a locked page becoming unlocked
> without PG_uptodate being set indicates an error -- the best thing here
> is probably to add a PG_error flag and do away with the overloading.

I'm not convinced: doing an explicit read-page and waking up to find it
not uptodate sure sounds like an error to me.  If we find a page which
isn't uptodate, then the first thing we do is try to read it, we don't
generate the error immediately.  Why do we need a new flag?

--Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm my@address'
in the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/