From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XC1vh-0002EQ-AN for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:34:38 +0000 Message-ID: <53D74E54.3010902@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:33:40 +0800 From: Zhang Zhen MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ubifs: refactor ubifs_file_mmap() References: <1406010548-13996-1-git-send-email-zhenzhang.zhang@huawei.com> <53CE049B.7050801@huawei.com> <1406564713.23376.39.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <53D71A0F.9070008@huawei.com> <1406618431.23376.81.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1406618431.23376.81.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wangnan0@huawei.com, MTD Maling List , Adrian Hunter List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2014/7/29 15:20, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 11:50 +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote: >> On 2014/7/29 0:25, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: >>> On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 14:28 +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote: >>>> generic_file_mmap() set vma->vm_ops = &generic_file_vm_ops, >>>> then ubifs_file_mmap set vma->vm_ops = &ubifs_file_vm_ops. >>>> So it is redundant. >>>> And there is no kind of file does not supply page reading function >>>> in ubifs. The readpage() check up for mmap file in generic_file_mmap() >>>> is not needed. >>>> >>>> So remove the call of generic_file_mmap(). >>>> >>>> Change v1 -> v2: >>>> - deleted the mapping variable >>>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Zhen >>> >>> Hi, I am not sure about this patch. 'generic_file_mmap()' covers ! >>> CONFIG_MMU case too, for example. >>> >> Yes, I missed that. We can add #ifdef CONFIG_MMU in ubifs_file_mmap(). >> Considering the patch itself is not important changes, we can give up >> this patch, remain the same. >> >> What do you think? > > I think it is better to leave it as it is, because that's not too bad > and works. Changing this has a risk of breaking something. UBIFS does > not enjoy a huge user base like, say, ext4, so the breakage could easily > go unnoticed for long time. > OK.