On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:20:54 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:18:45 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:31:00 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:07:11 +0900
> > > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > > Hmm...accepatable ? (sounds it's in error-range)
> > > 
> > > BTW, why local_irq_disable() ? 
> > > local_irq_save()/restore() isn't better ?
> > > 
> > I don't have any strong reason. All of lock_page_cgroup() is *now* called w/o irq disabled,
> > so I used just disable()/enable() instead of save()/restore().
> 
> My point is, this will be used under treelock soon.
> 
I agree.

I'll update the patch using save()/restore(), and repost later.


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
--
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/