Re: [PATCH] rmap 18 i_mmap_nonlinear

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Hugh Dickins wrote:

> are some nonlinears; but really, we'd do best to take them out of the
> prio_tree altogether, into a list of their own - i_mmap_nonlinear.

Agreed, though on a related issue ...

> +++ rmap18/fs/inode.c	2004-04-27 19:19:05.866225752 +0100
> @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ void inode_init_once(struct inode *inode
>  	spin_lock_init(&inode->i_data.private_lock);
>  	INIT_PRIO_TREE_ROOT(&inode->i_data.i_mmap);
>  	INIT_PRIO_TREE_ROOT(&inode->i_data.i_mmap_shared);
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_data.i_mmap_nonlinear);

... do we still need both i_mmap and i_mmap_shared?
Is there a place left where we're using both trees in
a different way, or are we just walking both trees
anyway in all places where they're referenced ?

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/