Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:03:24 +0100 | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: innd mmap bug in 2.4.0-test12 |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 03:41:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > It must be wrong. > > > > > > If we have a dirty page on the LRU lists, that page _must_ have a mapping. > > > > What about pages with a mapping but without a writepage function ? or pages > > whose writepage function fails ? The current code seems to simply put the > > page onto the active list in that case, which seems just as wrong to me. > > ramfs. It doesn't have a writepage() function, as there is no backing > store. > > > > The bug is somewhere else, and your patch is just papering it over. We > > > should not have a page without a mapping on the LRU lists in the first > > > place, except if the page has anonymous buffers (and such a page cannot > > > > So is there any legal reason we could ever get to page_active ? Removing > > that code (or replacing it with BUG()) certainly would make page_launder > > more readable. > > Apart from the "we have no backing store", there is no legal reason to put > it back on the active list that I can see.
It's logical that PageDirty should never be get for ramfs, and a ramfs page should never have buffers on it. With this and Chris's anon_space mapping can we replace the check for null ->writepage with BUG? With the anon_space mapping we should be able to do the same ford for ->mapping.
Though these things aren't strictly bugs, having to check multiple paths for everything is slowing us down in picking off the fluff.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |