[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:0.029 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site