Re: Adding an ugliness in __read_cache_page()?

From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Mon May 23 2011 - 12:23:32 EST

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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at