On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > There's no no-no here: you can even create the "struct page"s on demand, > and create a dummy local zone that contains them that they all point back > to. It should be trivial - nobody else cares about those pages or that > zone anyway. > > This is very much how the MM layer in 2.4.x is set up to work. > > That said, nobody has actually done this in practice yet, so there may be > details to work out, of course. I don't see any fundamental reasons it > wouldn't easily work, but.. If I follow you correctly, this is how I was planning to provide execute-in-place support for filesystems on flash chips - allocating 'struct page's and adding them to the page cache on read_inode(). -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Andre Hedrick
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? kuznet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? kuznet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? kuznet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David Woodhouse
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Kai Henningsen
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Mo McKinlay
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- RE: Is sendfile all that sexy? David Schwartz
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Roman Zippel
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? James Sutherland
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Helge Hafting