Re: [PATCH] rd: Mark ramdisk buffers heads dirty

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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH resend] ramdisk: fix zeroed ramdisk pages on memory pressure
    • From: Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] rd: Mark ramdisk buffers heads dirty
    • From: Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] rd: Mark ramdisk buffers heads dirty
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: [PATCH] rd: Mark ramdisk buffers heads dirty
    • From: Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: VIA VT6307 OHCI version?
• Next by Date: Re: some kernel headers broken in current git ?
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] rd: Mark ramdisk buffers heads dirty
• Next by thread: [PATCH] rd: Use a private inode for backing storage
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]