On Sat, Dec 12 2015, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:16:24PM +, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> #define set_delayed_type(call, f, arg) \
>> sizeof(f(arg),0), \
>> __set_delayed_type(call, __closure_##f, (void *)arg)
>>
>> That could be reused for timers with typechecking - we have
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:54:25AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> BTW, why are we passing unsigned long to free_page()? We have
> a bit under 700 callers; excluding the ones that have an explicit cast
> to unsigned long right in the argument of call leaves ~150, and the rest
> tend to contain a lo
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:16:24PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> #define set_delayed_type(call, f, arg) \
> sizeof(f(arg),0), \
> __set_delayed_type(call, __closure_##f, (void *)arg)
>
> That could be reused for timers with typechecking - we have a lot of timer
> callbacks that start with c
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:49:24AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> union delayed_call_fn {
> void (*fn)(void *);
> void (*kfree_like)(const void *);
> } __attribute__((__transparent_union__));
>
> void
> set_delayed_call(struct delayed_call *call, union delayed_call_fn u, void
> *arg
On Fri, Dec 11 2015, Al Viro wrote:
> I would really love to be able to say
> set_delayed_call(done, kfree, p);
> but as it is I had to keep a wrapper - void kfree_link(void *). The problem
> is, you can't assign void f(const void *) to void (*p)(void *) - mismatch of
> qualifiers in the a
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:40:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> ... except that it would have to be something like work_struct, since
> callback_head gets embedded into the argument and here we don't want to
> do that. _And_ we've no use for ->entry in work_struct, which makes it
> a bad fit as well.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:10:12AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> PS: I toyed with the idea of replacing cookie a struct callback_head, to make
... except that it would have to be something like work_struct, since
callback_head gets embedded into the argument and here we don't want to
do that. _And_ we
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:23:09PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> What's more, that dentry might very well have gone negative by that
> point. Think what happens if, during the symlink traversal, we run
> into the hard "restart from scratch in non-RCU mode". We'll need to
> do ->put_link() on everythin
Hi Al,
thanks a lot for this. I particularly like that you renamed
"follow_link" which didn't really describe what the function did any
more.
Apart from the changelog comment in 4/11 which starts
"It was to needed for ..."
I can't fault anything.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
signature.asc
Descr
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:24:32AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>That's because of the HIGHMEM crap that you removed. Without
> highmem, the page data address specifies the page fine without any
> cookie.
>
> - overlayfs, which uses it to create a temporary data storage.
>
>Why? Mainly
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Any help with review and testing would be welcome. FWIW, it seems to survive
> the beating here.
It looks ok to me, but I *hate* that "cookie" thing we have. And I
don't actually see any reason for it.
Every single user except for a couple seem
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:57:52PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> Right now we stay in RCU mode for fast symlink traversal.
> However, anything trickier drops out of RCU mode - back in 4.2
> the symlink-related pile had grown too large to add this on top
> of everything else. Below is an attempt t
12 matches
Mail list logo
