> The second is that bh's are two things:
>
> - a cacheing object
> - an io buffer
>
> This is not really an clean appropeach, and I would really like to get
> away from it.
caching bmap() blocks was a recent addition around 2.3.20, and i suggested
some time ago to cache pagecache blocks via explicit entries in struct
page. That would be one solution - but it creates overhead.
but there isnt anything wrong with having the bhs around to cache blocks -
think of it as a 'cached and recycled IO buffer entry, with the block
information cached'.
frankly, my quick (and limited) hack to abuse bhs to cache blocks just
cannot be a reason to replace bhs ...
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/