From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <472101D8.1020104@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:51:36 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE References: <200710251601.l9PG1Mue019939@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> In-Reply-To: <200710251601.l9PG1Mue019939@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Erez Zadok Cc: Hugh Dickins , Pekka Enberg , Andrew Morton , 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: Erez Zadok wrote: > 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). > A number of filesystems want partial or full stackability, so getting rid of lack-of-stackability whereever it may be is highly valuable. -hpa -- 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