Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 May 2011 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: Adding an ugliness in __read_cache_page()? |
| |
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 03:25:31PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > I find both ways ugly, but no nice alternative: introducing a new method > > when the known callers are already tied to tmpfs/ramfs seems over the top. > > Calling into shmem directly is the less ugly variant.
Okay, that's good, thanks.
> Long term killing > that tmpfs abuse would be even better, but I already lost that fight > when it was initially added.
I'd better match your restraint and not fan the flames now - I believe we're on opposite sides, or at least orthogonal on that.
Hugh
| |