Re: [PATCH] rmap 18 i_mmap_nonlinear

[Hugh Dickins]

On 29 Apr 2004, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 01:10, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > That's right, arm and parisc do handle them differently: currently
> > arm ignores i_mmap (and I think rmk was wondering a few months ago
> > whether that's actually correct, given that MAP_SHARED mappings
> > which can never become writable go in there - and that surprise is
> > itself a very good reason for combining them), and parisc... ah,
> > what it does in Linus' tree at present is about the same for both,
> > but there are some changes on the way.
> 
> Actually, as I said before, parisc is reworking the cache flushing stuff

Yes, not forgotten, that's what I meant by saying some changes on the way.

> in our tree.  As things currently stand we've altered our map allocation
> so that we now treat i_mmap no differently from i_mmap_shared, so we'd

Ah, not quite so in what you last showed me, but no matter...

> be fine with merging them.

Great, thanks.  No need for you to refresh me: if I do go ahead with
merging them (not my current priority), it'll be obvious from whatever
patch I show against -mm, what change you'd want to make to your tree.

Hugh

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/