From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:01:22 -0400 Message-Id: <200710251601.l9PG1Mue019939@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> From: Erez Zadok Subject: Re: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:30:08 BST." Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Pekka Enberg , Andrew Morton , ezk@cs.sunysb.edu, ryan@finnie.org, mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, cjwatson@ubuntu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@kernel.org List-ID: In message , 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 shown > that it's time to future-proof this code against whatever stacking > filesystems come along. Hence I didn't mention the names of such > filesystems in the source comment. I think "future proof" for other stackable f/s is a good idea, esp. since many of the stackable f/s we've developed and distributed over the past 10 years are in some use in various places: gzipfs, avfs, tracefs, replayfs, ncryptfs, versionfs, wrapfs, i3fs, and more (see www.filesystems.org). Cheers, Erez. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org