From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262007AbUD1XpT (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:45:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261931AbUD1XpS (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:45:18 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:23168 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262007AbUD1XpN (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:45:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:44:48 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Rik van Riel Cc: Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Rajesh Venkatasubramanian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rmap 18 i_mmap_nonlinear Message-ID: <20040428234448.GB737@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Rik van Riel , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Rajesh Venkatasubramanian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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