From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l6C2V7bm020708 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:31:09 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:31:00 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: block_page_mkwrite? (Re: fault vs invalidate race (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)) Message-ID: <20070712023100.GX12413810@sgi.com> References: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <46957BE1.1010104@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46957BE1.1010104@yahoo.com.au> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Memory Management , linux-fsdevel , xfs-oss On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:54:57AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > The fault-vs-invalidate race fix. I have belatedly learned that these > > need > > more work, so their state is uncertain. > > The more work may turn out being too much for you (although it is nothing > exactly tricky that would introduce subtle bugs, it is a fair amont of > churn). OK, so does that mean we can finally get the block_page_mkwrite patches merged? i.e.: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117426058311032&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117426070111136&w=2 I've got up-to-date versions of them ready to go and they've been consistently tested thanks to the XFSQA test I wrote for the bug that it fixes. I've been holding them out-of-tree for months now because ->fault was supposed to supercede this interface..... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group