On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 04:10:01PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I haven't brought up the caller at this point, but IIRC you had > > the page locked and mapping confirmed at this point anyway so > > it would never be an error for your code. > > > > Probably it would be nice to just force callers to verify the page. > > Normally IMO it is much nicer and clearer to do it at the time the > > page gets locked, unless there is good reason otherwise. > > Ok. I think I'll just keep it as it is for now. > > The only reason I added the error code was to make truncate_inode_page > fit into .error_remove_page, but then latter I did another wrapper > so it could be removed again. But it won't hurt to have it either. OK, it's more of a cleanup/nit. One question I had for the others (Andrew? other mm guys?) what is the feelings of merging this feature? Leaving aside exact implementation and just considering the high level design and cost/benefit. Last time there were some people objecting, so I wonder the situation now? So does anybody need more convincing? :) Also I will just cc linux-arch. It would be interesting to know whether powerpc, ia64, or s390 or others would be interested to use this feature? Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
