[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <472101D8.1020104@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:51:36 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
CC: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ryan@...nie.org,
mhalcrow@...ibm.com, cjwatson@...ntu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE
Erez Zadok wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710250705510.9811@...nde.wat.veritas.com>, Hugh Dickins writes:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> With unionfs also fixed, we don't know of an absolute need for this
>> patch (and so, on that basis, the !wbc->for_reclaim case could indeed
>> be removed very soon); but as I see it, the unionfs case has shown
>> that it's time to future-proof this code against whatever stacking
>> filesystems come along. Hence I didn't mention the names of such
>> filesystems in the source comment.
>
> I think "future proof" for other stackable f/s is a good idea, esp. since
> many of the stackable f/s we've developed and distributed over the past 10
> years are in some use in various places: gzipfs, avfs, tracefs, replayfs,
> ncryptfs, versionfs, wrapfs, i3fs, and more (see www.filesystems.org).
>
A number of filesystems want partial or full stackability, so getting
rid of lack-of-stackability whereever it may be is highly valuable.
-hpa
-
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