Hi Hugh,

On 10/25/07, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
quoted text
> --- 2.6.24-rc1/mm/shmem.c       2007-10-24 07:16:04.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/mm/shmem.c    2007-10-24 22:31:09.000000000 +0100
> @@ -915,6 +915,21 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *
>         struct inode *inode;
>
>         BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> +       /*
> +        * shmem_backing_dev_info's capabilities prevent regular writeback or
> +        * sync from ever calling shmem_writepage; but a stacking filesystem
> +        * may use the ->writepage of its underlying filesystem, in which case

I find the above bit somewhat misleading as it implies that the
!wbc->for_reclaim case can be removed after ecryptfs has similar fix
as unionfs. Can we just say that while BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK does
prevent some callers from entering ->writepage(), it's just an
optimization and ->writepage() must deal with !wbc->for_reclaim case
properly?

                                          Pekka
-
unsubscribe notice
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/