From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Otte Subject: Re: [patch] ext2: xip check fix Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:59:02 +0100 Message-ID: <4757C7E6.7050405@de.ibm.com> References: <20071204042628.GA26636@wotan.suse.de> <200712041054.51599.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20071204101009.GB9618@wotan.suse.de> <20071204112100.GA20420@wotan.suse.de> <20071204112327.GB20420@wotan.suse.de> <4756C714.2040809@de.ibm.com> <20071205233345.GB5617@wotan.suse.de> <4757B62F.2040608@de.ibm.com> <20071206085223.GA25202@wotan.suse.de> Reply-To: carsteno@de.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: carsteno@de.ibm.com, Christian Borntraeger , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrew Morton , rob@landley.net, Jens Axboe To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from mout0.freenet.de ([195.4.92.90]:36606 "EHLO mout0.freenet.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751615AbXLFJ7M (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:59:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071206085223.GA25202@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > After my patch, we can do XIP in a hardsect size < PAGE_SIZE block > device -- this seems to be a fine thing to do at least for the > ramdisk code. Would this situation be problematic for existing drivers, > and if so, in what way? I have done some archeology, and our ancient CVS logs show this check was introduced in early 2005 into our 2.6.x. codebase. However, it existed way before, and was copied from our prehistorical ext2 split named xip2 back in the old days of 2.4.x where we did not really have a block device behind because that one was scamped into the file system in a very queer way. After all, I don't see any risk in removing the check. The only driver we have that does direct_access is drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c, and that one only supports block_size == PAGE_SIZE. I think the patch should go into mainline. Acked-by: Carsten Otte