On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 03:41:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > It must be wrong.
> >
> > If we have a dirty page on the LRU lists, that page _must_ have a mapping.
>
> What about pages with a mapping but without a writepage function ? or pages
> whose writepage function fails ? The current code seems to simply put the
> page onto the active list in that case, which seems just as wrong to me.
ramfs. It doesn't have a writepage() function, as there is no backing
store.
> > The bug is somewhere else, and your patch is just papering it over. We
> > should not have a page without a mapping on the LRU lists in the first
> > place, except if the page has anonymous buffers (and such a page cannot
>
> So is there any legal reason we could ever get to page_active ? Removing
> that code (or replacing it with BUG()) certainly would make page_launder
> more readable.
Apart from the "we have no backing store", there is no legal reason to put
it back on the active list that I can see.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
