From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon,  9 Jun 2014 09:21:35 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <8a89cb0cb2f6a8a0defb3b8af07a407c@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5iytMqATUrz8ss4eiAeVpZCsMMdf1z-Hza4Dvsaocotmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <bbc4961fb4a4dcd9cc4ebbaf0e11cb8f@felloff.net>
	<055f6bc9f00c19e6b8a81c434408e6e3@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5hE4EiQ9udMoAW5ur46Dqu9MhtQhda8B9-geiD-MhimDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOw7k5iytMqATUrz8ss4eiAeVpZCsMMdf1z-Hza4Dvsaocotmg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] duppage
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f8d0ab36-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On 8 June 2014 19:37, Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8 June 2014 19:15, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> >
> >> i think it is in the image cache, but .ref >1.
> >
> >
> > but in that case it will still not pio, but make a local writable copy.
>
>
> in fact ref > 1 is the copy-on-write case and in a sense the usual one,
> where the copy is needed.

i'll get back to this.  after looking at the refcounting and thinking
about how imagealloc interacts with image allocation, the locking
scheme in imagereclaim does not make any sense.

- erik