[PATCH 0/3] Demand faulting for hugetlb

From: Adam Litke
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 13:31:03 EST

Ok, here's the next iteration of these patches. I think I've handled
the truncate() case by comparing the hugetlbfs inode's i_size with the
mapping offset of the requested page to make sure it hasn't been
truncated. Can anyone confirm or deny that I have the locking correct
for this? The other patches are still unchanged. Andrew: Did Andi
Kleen's explanation of huge_pages_needed() satisfy?
Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com)
IBM Linux Technology Center

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/