[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121013160455.GA32420@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:04:55 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs pile 3
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 05:01:15PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> You know, I'm in the middle of dealing with one such TODO. Yours, as it
> were. From six years ago. kernel_thread() unexporting. TODO comments
> of any form are routinely shat upon and ignored, especially when shuffled
> away into less read parts of the tree... ;-/
>
> I'd rather see it done fs-by-fs. Starting with something reasonably easy
> to test - minixfs would do nicely. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for
> burying ->truncate(); what I'm worried about is that we'll end up burying
> the warning about the reasons why vmtruncate() was a bad idea, leaving the
> functionality exactly as it used to be...
As mentioned I agree with the concern in principle. Let's start by
taking Marco's patches for filesystems that use vmtruncate but don't
actually implement ->truncate. There's a few I remember offhand, e.g.
procfs and ufs right now. Then we can do the actual work required ones
piece by piece.
--
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