[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCHSET] non-recursive link_path_walk() and reducing stack footprint
Am 21.04.2015 um 17:04 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:49:59PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 07:12:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>>> Patches 2/24..6/24 are from Neil's RCU follow_link patchset; the
>>> rest of his patchset is, of course, derailed by the massage done here,
>>> but AFAICS we should be able to port it on top of this one with reasonably
>>> little PITA.
>> BTW, looking at the ->put_link() instances in the tree, after this series
>> all but one of them ignore *everything* other than cookie. The only exception
>> is hppfs; it wants dentry (and its inode as well):
>> static void hppfs_put_link(struct dentry *dentry, void *cookie)
>> {
>> struct dentry *proc_dentry = HPPFS_I(d_inode(dentry))->proc_dentry;
>> if (d_inode(proc_dentry)->i_op->put_link)
>> d_inode(proc_dentry)->i_op->put_link(proc_dentry, cookie);
>> }
> The hppfs code looks totally bogus in general. Richard, do you know if
> anyone still uses that part of UML?

I'm pretty sure we can kill it. I had the plan to rip it out during this merge window
along with other broken UML stuff but I was too late to ask on the UML mailinglist
if someone is using it (which I really doubt).
So, let's kill it with v4.2.

Or we move it into drivers/staging and hope that someone else is fixing it for us?
...just kidding. ;-)


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-21 17:41    [W:0.098 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site