> -int __page_symlink(struct inode *inode, const char *symname, int len,
> - gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +/*
> + * The nofs argument instructs pagecache_write_begin to pass AOP_FLAG_NOFS
> + */
> +int __page_symlink(struct inode *inode, const char *symname, int len, int nofs)
> {
> struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> struct page *page;
> void *fsdata;
> int err;
> char *kaddr;
> + unsigned int flags = AOP_FLAG_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> + if (nofs)
> + flags |= AOP_FLAG_NOFS;
>
> retry:
> err = pagecache_write_begin(NULL, mapping, 0, len-1,
> - AOP_FLAG_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, &page, &fsdata);
> + flags, &page, &fsdata);
> if (err)
> goto fail;
>
> @@ -2820,8 +2825,7 @@ fail:
>
> int page_symlink(struct inode *inode, const char *symname, int len)
> {
> - return __page_symlink(inode, symname, len,
> - mapping_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping));
> + return __page_symlink(inode, symname, len, 0);
> }
your patch always pass 0 into __page_symlink().
therefore it doesn't change any behavior.
right?
--
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
