Re: Stale super_blocks in 2.2

Phil Auld (
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:27:03 -0500

Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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)?
> The I/O completed a few seconds later anyway when bdflush got around to
> writing the data back out. I dont plan to change 2.2. 2.4 doesnt do that
> optimisation which is annoying in a few cases and a lot less suprising in
> others

Sure, the I/O completes, but the buffer_head is still in memory, valid and
On a subsequent mount the super_block comes from memory not disk. This works
as long as nobody else mounted that file system in between.

I can make the changes needed. I was really curious if you, or anyone else,
thought there might be page caching issues involved with invalidating on the way

Thanks the time,


Philip R. Auld,Ph.D. Techinical Staff
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