Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:44:48 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rmap 18 i_mmap_nonlinear |
| |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 07:11:18PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > ... do we still need both i_mmap and i_mmap_shared? > Is there a place left where we're using both trees in > a different way, or are we just walking both trees > anyway in all places where they're referenced ?
I believe the flush_dcache_page() implementations touching ->i_mmap_shared care about this distinction.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |