[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0812052218120.27321@blonde.anvils>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:21:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shmem: unify regular and tiny shmem
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 13:18 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > I agree with where you're going (surrendering your empire to mine!
> > or perhaps you don't you see it quite that way?), but I think this
> > isn't quite the patch you meant to send: it shouldn't contain that
> >
> > > - &shmem_file_operations);
> > > + &shmem_file_operations);
> > > +
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_MMU
> > > + error = ramfs_nommu_expand_for_mapping(inode, size);
> > > + if (error)
> > > + goto close_file;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > hunk in mm/shmem.c
>
> I'm staring at the source and I'm at a loss as to why not? SHMEM depends
> on MMU, so this only gets done when !SHMEM && !MMU, which makes it the
> same as the tiny-shmem.c code it's unifying, no?
Sorry for wasting your time puzzling over that, it was just me getting
confused with the ramfs_nommu_get_unmapped_area() bit which does vanish:
this part is fine.
Hugh
>
> > and it should be deleting mm/tiny-shmem.c?
>
> Not sure how that bit fell off, yes.
--
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