[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:0.018 / U:6.668 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site