On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:59:02AM +0100, Carsten Otte wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> >After my patch, we can do XIP in a hardsect size < PAGE_SIZE block
> >device -- this seems to be a fine thing to do at least for the
> >ramdisk code. Would this situation be problematic for existing drivers,
> >and if so, in what way?
> I have done some archeology, and our ancient CVS logs show this check
> was introduced in early 2005 into our 2.6.x. codebase. However, it
> existed way before, and was copied from our prehistorical ext2 split
> named xip2 back in the old days of 2.4.x where we did not really have
> a block device behind because that one was scamped into the file
> system in a very queer way.
OK, thanks for taking a look at that. It will be helpful for testing
XIP with my new ramdisk driver (did you see the patch?).
> After all, I don't see any risk in removing the check. The only driver
> we have that does direct_access is drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c, and
> that one only supports block_size == PAGE_SIZE. I think the patch
> should go into mainline.
Actually another one's recently sprung up too (arch/powerpc/sysdev/axonram.c)
but it looks like that one should be fine as it looks to be all simply memory
mapped.
> Acked-by: Carsten Otte <[email protected]>
Thanks! Andrew, would you queue this up for 2.6.25 please?
--
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]
