Re: [patchlet] Removing unneeded line in vmtruncate() (2.4.0-t8p1)

From: Rasmus Andersen (rasmus@jaquet.dk)
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 16:19:09 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Garlick: "MTBF data for linux"

    On 0, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@veritas.com> wrote:
    > On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Rasmus Andersen wrote:
    >
    > > Hi.
    > >
    > > AFAICS, the line removed below is redundant. Comments?
    > >
    > > --- linux-240test8-pre1/mm/memory.c Thu Aug 10 16:29:54 2000
    > > +++ linux/mm/memory.c Fri Sep 1 22:00:16 2000
    > > @@ -986,7 +986,6 @@
    > > out_unlock:
    > > spin_unlock(&mapping->i_shared_lock);
    > > /* this should go into ->truncate */
    > > - inode->i_size = offset;
    > > if (inode->i_op && inode->i_op->truncate)
    > > inode->i_op->truncate(inode);
    > > return;
    >
    > Rasmus, you introduced a bug because you removed the code but left the
    > comment around. now /* this should go into ->truncate */ is there and very
    > confusing - what should go into ->truncate?

    Good point. So what is the Right Thing? Moving inode->i_size = offset
    into truncate() and cleaning up vmtruncate()? Or just kill the comment
    along with the other line? :)

    I guess my kernel experience mostly lends itself to the latter, but I
    could take a shot at the former if it is the Right Thing.

    Thanks for the prompt comment. 

    -- 
Regards,
        Rasmus(rasmus@jaquet.dk)

    Are they taking DDT?
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle asking doctors at a Manhattan
                   AIDS clinic about their treatments of choice, 4/30/92
                   (reported in Esquire, 8/92, and NY Post early May 92)
-
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/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 16:27:13 EDT