On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:27:55 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If it doesn't look very impressive, it could be because it leaves all > > the old crud around for backwards compatibility (the worst offenders > > are removed in patch 6/6). > > > > If you look at the patchset as a whole, it removes about 250 lines, > > mostly of (non trivial) duplicated code in filemap.c memory.c shmem.c > > fremap.c, that is nonlinear pages specific and doesn't get anywhere > > near the testing that the linear fault path does. > > > > A minimal fix for nonlinear pages would have required changing all > > ->populate handlers, which I simply thought was not very productive > > considering the testing and coverage issues, and that I was going to > > rewrite the nonlinear path anyway. > > > > If you like, you can consider patches 1,2,3 as the fix, and ignore > > nonlinear (hey, it doesn't even bother checking truncate_count > > today!). > > > > Then 4,5,6 is the fault/nonlinear rewrite, take it or leave it. I > > thought you would have liked the patches... > > btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing maintainance > pain, we could internally implement/emulate sys_remap_file_pages() via a > call to mremap() and essentially deprecate it, without breaking the ABI > - and remove all the nonlinear code. (This would split fremap areas into > separate vmas) > I'm rather regretting having merged it - I don't think it has been used for much. Paolo's UML speedup patches might use nonlinear though. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
