[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE
Erez Zadok wrote:
> In message <>, Hugh Dickins writes:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> With unionfs also fixed, we don't know of an absolute need for this
>> patch (and so, on that basis, the !wbc->for_reclaim case could indeed
>> be removed very soon); but as I see it, the unionfs case has shown
>> that it's time to future-proof this code against whatever stacking
>> filesystems come along. Hence I didn't mention the names of such
>> filesystems in the source comment.
> I think "future proof" for other stackable f/s is a good idea, esp. since
> many of the stackable f/s we've developed and distributed over the past 10
> years are in some use in various places: gzipfs, avfs, tracefs, replayfs,
> ncryptfs, versionfs, wrapfs, i3fs, and more (see

A number of filesystems want partial or full stackability, so getting
rid of lack-of-stackability whereever it may be is highly valuable.


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: 2007-10-25 22:55    [W:0.060 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site