From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [GIT] Please pull NFS client fixes against linux-2.6.25-rc8 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:37:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1207748251.8303.31.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <1207703414.21370.1.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20080409082408.GA17458@infradead.org> <1207746758.8303.4.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20080409132721.GA23852@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , Bryan Wu Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:19596 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754020AbYDINhf (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:37:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080409132721.GA23852@infradead.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 09:27 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:12:38AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > That is what this does. For the case of no mmu, generic_file_mmap() > > compiles into a 'return -ENOSYS;' > > doh, I was under the impression we had a real implementation now. > Of course then it makes much more sense to just not set .mmap at all, > which gives the same effect in a more obvious way and without any > confusion to the reader. (actually that one gives -ENODEV which I > assume is for some reason more appropinquate) I'm assuming there is a reason why the nommu folks want to return ENOSYS rather than ENODEV when mmap() is unsupported by the hardware. Bryan, any comments to that? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com www.netapp.com