Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760938AbXJYHYd (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:24:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755856AbXJYHYY (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:24:24 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.184]:35925 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755403AbXJYHYW (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:24:22 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=UoJUYvjk4Hq9WOgIyztF1lMQPp457srpOeupEknKB1Nv7TlujoWDQrSBd97JGDc9KOTf9UHwgNHoixWxIz3lQ1ge+pkJgPv2SAUs6RN4qfqlEXvDrRF2zfbNmXIlFglk51IY1ZXtfhrgegau/I6/aTdsFOEcDQrpJfi27LI+J+c= Message-ID: <84144f020710250024q683cfff2ubd1f8bda75415e2c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:24:22 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" To: "Hugh Dickins" Subject: Re: [PATCH+comment] fix tmpfs BUG and AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE Cc: "Andrew Morton" , ezk@cs.sunysb.edu, ryan@finnie.org, mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, cjwatson@ubuntu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200710142232.l9EMW8kK029572@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <84144f020710150447o94b1babo8b6e6a647828465f@mail.gmail.com> <20071024140836.a0098180.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <84144f020710242237q3aa8e96dtc8cf3f02f2af2cc9@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 125952db6c072a3f Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 905 Lines: 23 Hi Hugh, On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins 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. Heh, what can I say, after several readings, I still find your above explanation (which I totally agree with) more to the point than the actual comment :-). In any case, the patch looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg Pekka - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/