Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
>> Grr. Inconsistent rules on a core piece of infrastructure.
>> It looks like that if there is any trivial/minimal fix it
>> is based on your patch suppressing try_to_free_buffers. Ugh.
>>
>> Eric
>
> Ok. What do you think about having my patch for 2.6.23 stable, for 2.6.24
> and doing a nicer fix (rd rewrite for example for post 2.6.24)?
Looking at it. If we don't get carried away using our own private
inode is barely more difficult then stomping on release_page and
in a number of ways a whole lot more subtle. At least for 2.6.24 I
think it makes a sane fix, and quite possibly as a back port as well.
Eric
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
