Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:03:17PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> I think the right answer is most likely to add an extra file method or
>> two so we can remove the need for is_file_hugepages.
>> There are still 4 calls to is_file_hugepages in
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:26:48PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> :) Enter my remove-is_file_hugepages() patches (which I posted a few
> weeks ago). I'll rework them and repost soon. That should help to make
> all of this cleaner.
Those were great. I've wanted something like them for a long, long
Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A comment to prepare others for the impending doubletake might be nice.
>> Or maybe just open-coding the equality check for _file_operations
>> in is_file_shm_hugepages() if others find it as jarring as I. Please
>> extend my ack to any follow-up fiddling
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 16:03 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:46:08PM -0800, Adam Litke wrote:
> >> static inline int is_file_hugepages(struct file *file)
> >> {
> >> - return file->f_op == _file_operations;
> >> + if
Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:46:08PM -0800, Adam Litke wrote:
>> static inline int is_file_hugepages(struct file *file)
>> {
>> -return file->f_op == _file_operations;
>> +if (file->f_op == _file_operations)
>> +return 1;
>> +if
Bill Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:46:08PM -0800, Adam Litke wrote:
static inline int is_file_hugepages(struct file *file)
{
-return file-f_op == hugetlbfs_file_operations;
+if (file-f_op == hugetlbfs_file_operations)
+return 1;
+if
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 16:03 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Bill Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:46:08PM -0800, Adam Litke wrote:
static inline int is_file_hugepages(struct file *file)
{
- return file-f_op == hugetlbfs_file_operations;
+ if (file-f_op ==
Bill Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A comment to prepare others for the impending doubletake might be nice.
Or maybe just open-coding the equality check for hugetlbfs_file_operations
in is_file_shm_hugepages() if others find it as jarring as I. Please
extend my ack to any follow-up fiddling
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:26:48PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
:) Enter my remove-is_file_hugepages() patches (which I posted a few
weeks ago). I'll rework them and repost soon. That should help to make
all of this cleaner.
Those were great. I've wanted something like them for a long, long
Bill Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:03:17PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I think the right answer is most likely to add an extra file method or
two so we can remove the need for is_file_hugepages.
There are still 4 calls to is_file_hugepages in ipc/shm.c and
2
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:46:08PM -0800, Adam Litke wrote:
> static inline int is_file_hugepages(struct file *file)
> {
> - return file->f_op == _file_operations;
> + if (file->f_op == _file_operations)
> + return 1;
> + if (is_file_shm_hugepages(file))
> +
This patch provides the following hugetlb-related fixes to the recent stacked
shm files changes:
- Update is_file_hugepages() so it will reconize hugetlb shm segments.
- get_unmapped_area must be called with the nested file struct to handle
the sfd->file->f_ops->get_unmapped_area == NULL
This patch provides the following hugetlb-related fixes to the recent stacked
shm files changes:
- Update is_file_hugepages() so it will reconize hugetlb shm segments.
- get_unmapped_area must be called with the nested file struct to handle
the sfd-file-f_ops-get_unmapped_area == NULL case.
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:46:08PM -0800, Adam Litke wrote:
static inline int is_file_hugepages(struct file *file)
{
- return file-f_op == hugetlbfs_file_operations;
+ if (file-f_op == hugetlbfs_file_operations)
+ return 1;
+ if (is_file_shm_hugepages(file))
+
14 matches
Mail list logo
