From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-reply-to: <20081022143511.GF26094@parisc-linux.org> (message from Matthew Wilcox on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:35:11 -0600) Subject: Re: [patch] fs: improved handling of page and buffer IO errors References: <20081021133814.GA26942@fogou.chygwyn.com> <20081021143518.GA7158@2ka.mipt.ru> <20081021145901.GA28279@fogou.chygwyn.com> <20081021162957.GQ26184@parisc-linux.org> <20081022124829.GA826@shareable.org> <20081022134531.GE26094@parisc-linux.org> <20081022143511.GF26094@parisc-linux.org> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:45:24 +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: matthew@wil.cx Cc: miklos@szeredi.hu, jamie@shareable.org, steve@chygwyn.com, zbr@ioremap.net, npiggin@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > remap_file_pages() only hurts if you map the same page more than once > (which is permitted, but again, I don't think anyone actually does > that). This is getting very offtopic... but remap_file_pages() is just like MAP_FIXED, that the address at which a page is mapped is determined by the caller, not the kernel. So coherency with other, independent mapping of the file is basically up to chance. Do we care? I very much hope not. Why do PA-RISC and friends care at all about mmap coherecy? Is it real-world problem driven or just to be safe? Miklos -- 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