Re: [PATCH] shmem: unify regular and tiny shmem

[Matt Mackall]

On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 13:18 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I agree with where you're going (surrendering your empire to mine!
> or perhaps you don't you see it quite that way?), but I think this
> isn't quite the patch you meant to send: it shouldn't contain that
> 
> > -			&shmem_file_operations);
> > +		  &shmem_file_operations);
> > +
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_MMU
> > +	error = ramfs_nommu_expand_for_mapping(inode, size);
> > +	if (error)
> > +		goto close_file;
> > +#endif
> 
> hunk in mm/shmem.c

I'm staring at the source and I'm at a loss as to why not? SHMEM depends
on MMU, so this only gets done when !SHMEM && !MMU, which makes it the
same as the tiny-shmem.c code it's unifying, no?

> and it should be deleting mm/tiny-shmem.c?

Not sure how that bit fell off, yes.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
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/