lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patchlet] Removing unneeded line in vmtruncate() (2.4.0-t8p1)
On  0, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@veritas.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Rasmus Andersen wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > AFAICS, the line removed below is redundant. Comments?
> >
> > --- linux-240test8-pre1/mm/memory.c Thu Aug 10 16:29:54 2000
> > +++ linux/mm/memory.c Fri Sep 1 22:00:16 2000
> > @@ -986,7 +986,6 @@
> > out_unlock:
> > spin_unlock(&mapping->i_shared_lock);
> > /* this should go into ->truncate */
> > - inode->i_size = offset;
> > if (inode->i_op && inode->i_op->truncate)
> > inode->i_op->truncate(inode);
> > return;
>
> Rasmus, you introduced a bug because you removed the code but left the
> comment around. now /* this should go into ->truncate */ is there and very
> confusing - what should go into ->truncate?

Good point. So what is the Right Thing? Moving inode->i_size = offset
into truncate() and cleaning up vmtruncate()? Or just kill the comment
along with the other line? :)

I guess my kernel experience mostly lends itself to the latter, but I
could take a shot at the former if it is the Right Thing.

Thanks for the prompt comment.
--
Regards,
Rasmus(rasmus@jaquet.dk)

Are they taking DDT?
-- Vice President Dan Quayle asking doctors at a Manhattan
AIDS clinic about their treatments of choice, 4/30/92
(reported in Esquire, 8/92, and NY Post early May 92)
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.038 / U:34.124 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site