On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 03:10:19PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:19:53PM +1100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > We were a little sloppy about using PAGE_SIZE instead of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE.
>
> PAGE_CACHE_SIZE is non-sense. It never had any meaning. At least in
> upstream. An
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:19:53PM +1100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> We were a little sloppy about using PAGE_SIZE instead of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE.
PAGE_CACHE_SIZE is non-sense. It never had any meaning. At least in
upstream. And only leads to confusion on border between vfs and mm.
We should just drop i
We were a little sloppy about using PAGE_SIZE instead of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE.
The important thing to remember is that the VM is gicing us a pgoff_t
and asking us to populate that. If PAGE_CACHE_SIZE were larger than
PAGE_SIZE, then we would not successfully fill in the PTEs for faults
that occurred in
3 matches
Mail list logo