From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so325678rvb for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <84144f020710250024q683cfff2ubd1f8bda75415e2c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:24:22 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" Subject: Re: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200710142232.l9EMW8kK029572@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <84144f020710150447o94b1babo8b6e6a647828465f@mail.gmail.com> <20071024140836.a0098180.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <84144f020710242237q3aa8e96dtc8cf3f02f2af2cc9@mail.gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , ezk@cs.sunysb.edu, ryan@finnie.org, mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, cjwatson@ubuntu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@kernel.org List-ID: Hi Hugh, On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins 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. Heh, what can I say, after several readings, I still find your above explanation (which I totally agree with) more to the point than the actual comment :-). In any case, the patch looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg Pekka -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org