[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710251644.l9PGilSK021536@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:44:47 -0400
From: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>, Ryan Finnie <ryan@...nie.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
cjwatson@...ntu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland
That's a nice historical review, Huge, of how got into these mess we're in
now -- it all starts with good intentions. :-)
On a related note, I would just love to get rid of calling the lower
->writepage in unionfs b/c I can't even tell if I have a lower page to use
all the time. I'd prefer to call vfs_write() if I can, but I'll need a
struct file, or at least a dentry.
What ecryptfs does is store a struct file inside it's inode, so it can use
it later in ->writepage to call vfs_write on the lower f/s. And Unionfs may
have to go in that direction too, but this trick is not terribly clean --
storing a file inside an inode.
I realize that the calling path to ->writepage doesn't have a file/dentry
any more, but if we're considering larger changes to the writepage related
code, can we perhaps consider passing a file or dentry to >writepage (same
as commit_write, perhaps).
Thanks,
Erez.
-
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