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 <cotte@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! Andrew, would you queue this up for 2.6.25 please? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
