Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/5] mm/fs: execute in place (V2)

[Carsten Otte]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> I don't like this read split at all. Please just define a completely
>
>separate entry point for read, xip_file_read except for verifying the
>iovecs you don't share any code.
>Similar please add a separate xip_file_mmap.
>Dito with xip_file_write.
>  
>
I do plainly agree that this would make the code more readable here.
But it has a significant downside:
Once you have a different set of file operations for either case, you
also need to have a different file_operations struct in each individual
filesystem using this. Also, this moves the check "do we have xip today?"
from here to the filesystem that needs to decide which file operations
struct to use.
Looking forward, there may be multiple filesystems using this which
leads to duplicating the need for this check.

>  
>
>>diff -ruN linux-git/mm/filemap.h linux-git-xip/mm/filemap.h
>>--- linux-git/mm/filemap.h	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
>>+++ linux-git-xip/mm/filemap.h	2005-05-17 18:33:57.792451512 +0200
>>@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
>>+/*
>>+ *	linux/mm/filemap.h
>>+ *
>>+ * Copyright (C) 2005 IBM Corporation
>>    
>>
>
>I think just adding an IBM copyright isn't fair.  Just copy it from
>filemap.c
>  
>
Agreed.

>
>You should probably use page_check_address().  Currently it's static in rmap.c,
>but that could be changed.
>  
>
Good point. This was derived from try_to_unmap_one before that one
was added. Btw: Should'nt this function move to rmap.c anyway?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/