On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 04:32:32PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> @@ -228,6 +239,12 @@ int sysv_delete_entry(struct sysv_dir_entry *de, struct
page *page)
> {
> struct inode *inode = page->mapping->host;
> loff_t pos = page_offset(page) + offset_in_page(de);
> + /*
> + * The "de" dentry points somewhere in the same page whose we need
the
> + * address of; therefore, we can simply get the base address "kaddr"
by
> + * masking the previous with PAGE_MASK.
> + */
> + char *kaddr = (char *)((unsigned long)de & PAGE_MASK);
er... ITYM "therefore we can pass de to dir_put_page() and get rid of that
kaddr
thing"...
Anyway, with that change the series rebased and applied on top of Christoph's
sysv
patch.
On venerdì 20 gennaio 2023 05:21:06 CET Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 04:32:32PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > -inline void dir_put_page(struct page *page)
> > +inline void dir_put_page(struct page *page, void *page_addr)
> >
> > {
> >
> > - kunmap(page);
> > + kunmap_local(page_addr);
>
> ... and that needed to be fixed - at some point "round down to beginning of
> page" got lost in rebasing...
Sorry for this late reply.
Unfortunately, at the moment, I have too little free time for kernel
development.
@Al...
I merged the two messages from you because they are related to changes to the
same patch. I would like to know if I am interpreting both correctly or not.
>From your posts it sounds like you're saying you made the necessary changes
and then applied this series on top of Christoph's latest patch to fs/sysv, so
don't expect me to push a new version.
Did I understand correctly or am I missing something?
Anyway, if my interpretation is correct, thank you very much.
Can you please confirm that I understood correctly or not?
Thank you,
Fabio
