Sorry for being obtuse, but I don't see how that's misleading at all.
ecryptfs already has a (dissimilar) fix in 2.6.24-rc1, not using the
writepage route at all. But it remains the case that some stacking
filesystem may (would you prefer "might" to "may"? "may" has a nice
double meaning of "might" and "we'll allow it", but this patch does
indeed allow it) use the ->writepage of its underlying filesystem.
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. Hence I didn't mention the names of such
filesystems in the source comment.
The !page_mapped assumption has been built in there since earliest
2.4, but it took a while for us to get a way to express it in a BUG.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html