On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
quoted text > > + struct mmu_notifier_head mmu_notifier; /* MMU notifier list */
> > };
>
> Not sure why you prefer to waste ram when MMU_NOTIFIER=n, this is a
> regression (a minor one though).
Andrew does not like #ifdefs and it makes it possible to verify calling
conventions if !CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER.
quoted text > It's out of my reach how can you be ok with lock=1. You said you have
> to block, if you can deal with lock=1 once, why can't you deal with
> lock=1 _always_?
Not sure yet. We may have to do more in that area. Need to have feedback
from Robin.
--
unsubscribe notice 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/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code , Christoph Lameter , (Tue Jan 29, 3:49 pm)