![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||