Subject: Re: nfs vs pagedaemon
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
Date: 05/01/2003 23:27:02
> > > the change you checked in isn't quite correct, though.
> > > if someone does a physio write (via vnd) to an NFS file from a mapping of
> > > the same file at a different offset, you'd set PG_NEEDCOMMMIT on the
> > > pages from the mapping instead of the pages for the range being modified
> > > (which might not even exist on the client).
> > i see. so, adding check of pg->offset is enough?
> it looks like that would take care of it, yea.
> (and on second thought, physio would take a different path and avoid
> any problem here, but writes via a vnd block device would still need this.)
physio via /dev/drum has the same problem, hasn't it?
> it would be easier to tell that the nfs_strategy() code is correct if it were
> told more explicitly when it's ok to use the commit mechanism, though.
do you think that B_PAGEIO can be useful for something other than nfs?
if not, isn't it better to push such knowledges into nfs itsself?