On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:47:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Right. I did a lot of tricksy work for rc3-mm1 to merge git-ocfs2 on top
> of Nick's stuff. Then I repulled your tree and lost it all. This is
> because I was dumb and I fixed rc3-mm1's git-ocfs.patch rather than doing a
> separate
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:33:02 -0700
Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:25:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Andrew, if this is ok with you I'd really like to see that fix in -mm.
> > > Ocfs2
> > > shared write mmap will instantly deadlock without it.
> >
> > u
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:25:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andrew, if this is ok with you I'd really like to see that fix in -mm. Ocfs2
> > shared write mmap will instantly deadlock without it.
>
> ug, OK. I get a ginormous reject when merging ocfs2 on Nick's stuff which
> I've been large
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:01:18 -0700
Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:20:39PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > Ok. So how about the attached patch? It's a bit different than discussed,
> > but I think it's much cleaner because it preserves the current behavior of
> > t
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:20:39PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> Ok. So how about the attached patch? It's a bit different than discussed,
> but I think it's much cleaner because it preserves the current behavior of
> the callback and keeps that bit of page locking inside core code. Not tested
> as o
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:53:49AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:45:17PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:34:02AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > Here's a nasty idea... Would it be valid for ->page_mkwrite to unlock
> > > > the
> > > > page, so lo
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:45:17PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:34:02AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Here's a nasty idea... Would it be valid for ->page_mkwrite to unlock the
> > > page, so long as it's returned in a locked state? Though, do we even need
> > > the page
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:34:02AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Here's a nasty idea... Would it be valid for ->page_mkwrite to unlock the
> > page, so long as it's returned in a locked state? Though, do we even need
> > the page lock that early? It seemed to me that you were adding it for
> > cons
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:24:40PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:01:29AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Ah, I didn't realise you were using that yet. I expect ocfs2 is using
> > VM_CAN_INVALIDATE there anyway.
> >
> > Hmm, this becomes easier to deal with after page_mkwrite
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:01:29AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ah, I didn't realise you were using that yet. I expect ocfs2 is using
> VM_CAN_INVALIDATE there anyway.
>
> Hmm, this becomes easier to deal with after page_mkwrite is merged with
> ->fault. But for now, can we just lock the page at th
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 04:13:54PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:58:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > git-ocfs2.patch
>
> Andrew, thanks for getting that back in there.
>
>
> mm-fix-fault-vs-invalidate-race-for-linear-mappings.patch broke ocfs2 shared
> writable mmap
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:58:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> git-ocfs2.patch
Andrew, thanks for getting that back in there.
mm-fix-fault-vs-invalidate-race-for-linear-mappings.patch broke ocfs2 shared
writable mmap. We hang on a page lock because ->page_mkwrite() is
being called with the pa
12 matches
Mail list logo
