Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:27:06 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: innd mmap bug in 2.4.0-test12 |
| |
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 03:41:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > It must be wrong. > > > > If we have a dirty page on the LRU lists, that page _must_ have a mapping. > > What about pages with a mapping but without a writepage function ? or pages > whose writepage function fails ? The current code seems to simply put the > page onto the active list in that case, which seems just as wrong to me.
ramfs. It doesn't have a writepage() function, as there is no backing store.
> > The bug is somewhere else, and your patch is just papering it over. We > > should not have a page without a mapping on the LRU lists in the first > > place, except if the page has anonymous buffers (and such a page cannot > > So is there any legal reason we could ever get to page_active ? Removing > that code (or replacing it with BUG()) certainly would make page_launder > more readable.
Apart from the "we have no backing store", there is no legal reason to put it back on the active list that I can see.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |