Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:51:36 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE |
| |
Erez Zadok wrote: > In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710250705510.9811@blonde.wat.veritas.com>, 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 www.filesystems.org). >
A number of filesystems want partial or full stackability, so getting rid of lack-of-stackability whereever it may be is highly valuable.
-hpa
- 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/
| |