Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 7 Dec 2003 09:50:13 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: aio on ramfs |
| |
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> writes: >> +static int ramfs_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc) >> +{ >> + return 0; >> +}
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 02:40:03AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Doesn't this break the magic of shrink_list()? I think it need the > "return WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE;" at least.
In truth these things shouldn't be on the LRU at all, though they're probably blindly plopped down there. My handwavy argument was that it makes no sense to do anything with it on the LRU and that I'd nopped out ->set_page_dirty() anyhow (i.e. PG_dirty should never get set). Does that hold enough water or should I still hand back WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE?
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |