[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020710242237q3aa8e96dtc8cf3f02f2af2cc9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:37:26 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ezk@...sunysb.edu,
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
Hi Hugh,
On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
> --- 2.6.24-rc1/mm/shmem.c 2007-10-24 07:16:04.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/mm/shmem.c 2007-10-24 22:31:09.000000000 +0100
> @@ -915,6 +915,21 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *
> struct inode *inode;
>
> BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> + /*
> + * shmem_backing_dev_info's capabilities prevent regular writeback or
> + * sync from ever calling shmem_writepage; but a stacking filesystem
> + * may use the ->writepage of its underlying filesystem, in which case
I find the above bit somewhat misleading as it implies that the
!wbc->for_reclaim case can be removed after ecryptfs has similar fix
as unionfs. Can we just say that while BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK does
prevent some callers from entering ->writepage(), it's just an
optimization and ->writepage() must deal with !wbc->for_reclaim case
properly?
Pekka
-
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