Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:28:13 +0000 (GMT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock |
| |
On 19 Jan 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Well, as the new shm code doesn't return 1 any more, the whole > > locked page handling should just be deleted. ramfs always just > > re-marked the page dirty in its own "writepage()" function, so it > > was only shmfs that ever returned this special case, and because of > > other issues it already got excised by Christoph.. > > No, that's not completely right. There may be rare cases like out of > swap that shmem_write does return 1. But couldn't it simply set the > page dirty like ramfs_writepage?
I notice that shmem_writepage() in 2.4.1-pre10 is still doing an early "return 1" without UnlockPage(page): surely that's wrong?
Hugh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |