[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rmap 18 i_mmap_nonlinear
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 07:11:18PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> ... do we still need both i_mmap and i_mmap_shared?
> Is there a place left where we're using both trees in
> a different way, or are we just walking both trees
> anyway in all places where they're referenced ?

I believe the flush_dcache_page() implementations touching
->i_mmap_shared care about this distinction.

-- wli
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.054 / U:7.880 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site