On Mon, 23 May 2011, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 03:25:31PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > I find both ways ugly, but no nice alternative: introducing a new method > > when the known callers are already tied to tmpfs/ramfs seems over the top. > > Calling into shmem directly is the less ugly variant. Okay, that's good, thanks. > Long term killing > that tmpfs abuse would be even better, but I already lost that fight > when it was initially added. I'd better match your restraint and not fan the flames now - I believe we're on opposite sides, or at least orthogonal on that. Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>