From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:44:47 -0400 Message-Id: <200710251644.l9PGilSK021536@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> From: Erez Zadok Subject: Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:36:44 BST." Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Pekka Enberg , Erez Zadok , Ryan Finnie , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cjwatson@ubuntu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, neilb@suse.de List-ID: That's a nice historical review, Huge, of how got into these mess we're in now -- it all starts with good intentions. :-) On a related note, I would just love to get rid of calling the lower ->writepage in unionfs b/c I can't even tell if I have a lower page to use all the time. I'd prefer to call vfs_write() if I can, but I'll need a struct file, or at least a dentry. What ecryptfs does is store a struct file inside it's inode, so it can use it later in ->writepage to call vfs_write on the lower f/s. And Unionfs may have to go in that direction too, but this trick is not terribly clean -- storing a file inside an inode. I realize that the calling path to ->writepage doesn't have a file/dentry any more, but if we're considering larger changes to the writepage related code, can we perhaps consider passing a file or dentry to >writepage (same as commit_write, perhaps). Thanks, 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