[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3d0408630710081550k430f50c1nae5097776358f1a0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 06:50:17 +0800
From: "Yan Zheng" <yanzheng@...n.com>
To: "Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@...redi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]fix VM_CAN_NONLINEAR check in sys_remap_file_pages
2007/10/8, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Yan Zheng wrote:
> >
> > The test for VM_CAN_NONLINEAR always fails
> Good catch indeed. Though I was puzzled how we do nonlinear at all,
> until I realized it's "The test for not VM_CAN_NONLINEAR always fails".
> It's not as serious as it appears, since code further down has been
> added more recently to simulate nonlinear on non-RAM-backed filesystems,
> instead of going the real nonlinear way; so most filesystems are now not
> required to do what VM_CAN_NONLINEAR was put in to ensure they could do.
> I'm confused as to where that leaves us: is this actually a fix that
> needs to go into 2.6.23? or will it suddenly disable a system call
> which has been silently working fine on various filesystems which did
> not add VM_CAN_NONLINEAR? could we just rip out VM_CAN_NONLINEAR?
> I hope Nick or Miklos is clearer on what the risks are.
> (Apologies for all the "not"s and "non"s here, I'm embarrassed
> after just criticizing Ingo's SCHED_NO_NO_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER!)
> Hugh
Yes, I mean "The test for not VM_CAN_NONLINEAR always fails". please
forgive my poor English.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists