Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland

In message <[email protected]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
> > If you've got suggestions how I can handle unionfs_write more cleanly, or
> > comments on the above possibilities, I'd love to hear them.
> 
> For now I think you should pursue the ~(__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO) idea somehow.
> 
> Hugh

Hugh, thanks for the great explanations and suggestions (in multiple
emails).  I'm going to test all of those soon.

Erez.
-
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:
- Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland
  - From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Version 9 (2.6.24-rc1) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
Previous by thread: Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland
Next by thread: Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland
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]