xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

block_page_mkwrite? (Re: fault vs invalidate race (Re: -mm merge plans f

To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: block_page_mkwrite? (Re: fault vs invalidate race (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23))
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:31:00 +1000
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <46957BE1.1010104@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <46957BE1.1010104@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • block_page_mkwrite? (Re: fault vs invalidate race (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23)), David Chinner <=