Erez Zadok wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg 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,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg 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
Hi Hugh,
On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- 2.6.24-rc1/mm/shmem.c 2007-10-24 07:16:04.0 +0100
> > +++ linux/mm/shmem.c2007-10-24 22:31:09.0 +0100
> > @@ -915,6 +915,21 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- 2.6.24-rc1/mm/shmem.c 2007-10-24 07:16:04.0 +0100
+++ linux/mm/shmem.c2007-10-24 22:31:09.0 +0100
@@ -915,6 +915,21 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *
Hi Hugh,
On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Dickins writes:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg 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
Erez Zadok wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Dickins writes:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg 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
Hi Hugh,
On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- 2.6.24-rc1/mm/shmem.c 2007-10-24 07:16:04.0 +0100
> +++ linux/mm/shmem.c2007-10-24 22:31:09.0 +0100
> @@ -915,6 +915,21 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *
> struct inode *inode;
>
>
It's possible to provoke unionfs (not yet in mainline, though in mm
and some distros) to hit shmem_writepage's BUG_ON(page_mapped(page)).
I expect it's possible to provoke the 2.6.23 ecryptfs in the same way
(but the 2.6.24 ecryptfs no longer calls lower level's ->writepage).
This came to light
Hi Hugh,
On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- 2.6.24-rc1/mm/shmem.c 2007-10-24 07:16:04.0 +0100
+++ linux/mm/shmem.c2007-10-24 22:31:09.0 +0100
@@ -915,6 +915,21 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *
struct inode *inode;
It's possible to provoke unionfs (not yet in mainline, though in mm
and some distros) to hit shmem_writepage's BUG_ON(page_mapped(page)).
I expect it's possible to provoke the 2.6.23 ecryptfs in the same way
(but the 2.6.24 ecryptfs no longer calls lower level's -writepage).
This came to light
12 matches
Mail list logo
