[PATCH 2.6.24-rc1] EXPORT_SYMBOL(__set_page_dirty_no_writeback);

[PATCH 2.6.24-rc1] EXPORT_SYMBOL(__set_page_dirty_no_writeback);

[Tetsuo Handa]

I think __set_page_dirty_no_writeback should be exported so that
tmpfs-like filesystems can use it.

Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa  <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

---
 mm/page-writeback.c |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Index: linux-2.6/mm/page-writeback.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2007-10-25 00:04:46.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.6/mm/page-writeback.c	2007-10-25 00:05:45.000000000 +0900
@@ -975,6 +975,7 @@
 		SetPageDirty(page);
 	return 0;
 }
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__set_page_dirty_no_writeback);
 
 /*
  * For address_spaces which do not use buffers.  Just tag the page as dirty in

Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc1] EXPORT_SYMBOL(__set_page_dirty_no_writeback);

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:15:55 +0900
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:

> I think __set_page_dirty_no_writeback should be exported so that
> tmpfs-like filesystems can use it.
> 

which filesystem is ACTUALLY using it?
Please submit the export together with the actual user; we have too
many unused exports already; the only way to remotely deal with that
problem is to merge the exports together with the actual code...

Greetings,
   Arjan van de Ven

Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc1]EXPORT_SYMBOL(__set_page_dirty_no_writeback);

[Tetsuo Handa]

Hello.

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > I think __set_page_dirty_no_writeback should be exported so that
> > tmpfs-like filesystems can use it.
> which filesystem is ACTUALLY using it?
> Please submit the export together with the actual user; we have too
> many unused exports already; the only way to remotely deal with that
> problem is to merge the exports together with the actual code...
tmpfs is using it, but tmpfs is always built-in.
I'm using a filesystem that is alike tmpfs.

Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc1]EXPORT_SYMBOL(__set_page_dirty_no_writeback);

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:36:27 +0900
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > I think __set_page_dirty_no_writeback should be exported so that
> > > tmpfs-like filesystems can use it.
> > which filesystem is ACTUALLY using it?
> > Please submit the export together with the actual user; we have too
> > many unused exports already; the only way to remotely deal with that
> > problem is to merge the exports together with the actual code...
> tmpfs is using it, but tmpfs is always built-in.
> I'm using a filesystem that is alike tmpfs.
> 
Hi,

when will you post this filesystem for inclusion into kernel.org kernel?
(and please really consider posting the patch together with that patch)
(also, if you can give a pointer to the source code of this filesystem
you might even get early code review)

 Greetings,
   Arjan van de Ven

Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc1]EXPORT_SYMBOL(__set_page_dirty_no_writeback);

[Tetsuo Handa]

Hello.

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> when will you post this filesystem for inclusion into kernel.org kernel?
> (and please really consider posting the patch together with that patch)
> (also, if you can give a pointer to the source code of this filesystem
> you might even get early code review)

I have proposed this filesystem at http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/11/1/48 .

In short, the filesystem I'm developing is a trivial device filesystem
that provides protection mechanism against tampering.

Reasons I don't use devfs/udev or fuse or LSM for /dev are:

  The devfs/udev don't provide protection mechanism against tampering.
  I don't know implementation that can enforce filename and it's attributes.
  Label based access control like SELinux doesn't distinguish
  /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2, do they?
  If a process who is permitted to unlink and create /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 is cracked,
  who can ensure that /dev/sda1 is block-8-1 and /dev/sda2 is block-8-2?
  A situation /dev/sda1 is block-8-2 and /dev/sda2 is block-8-1 can happen.

  /dev has to be valid throughout the lifetime of system
  (i.e. from /sbin/init till power failure).
  Filesystems using fuse will freeze when a system starts /usr/bin/killall at shutdown script,
  where it is too early to stop working of /dev partition.

  LSM is used by SELinux, thus there is unlikely chance to call my module
  to validate a device file's filename and it's attributes.

The latest snapshot (which is not following codingstyle) is at
http://svn.sourceforge.jp/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/trunk/1.5.x/ccs-patch/include/linux/syaoran.h?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=588&root=tomoyo
http://svn.sourceforge.jp/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/trunk/1.5.x/ccs-patch/fs/syaoran_2.6.c?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=614&root=tomoyo

If there is a chance for inclusion into kernel.org kernel, I'm willing to fix codingstyle and submit immediately.

Thank you.