On Thursday July 24, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl wrote:This patch all looks "obviously correct" and a nice factorisation of code, except the last little bit: I don't remember seeing it before (though my memory is imperfect) and it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the patch (except spatially). There is a test above for PF_MEMALLOC which will result in a "goto" somewhere else unless "in_interrupt()". There is immediately above a test for "!wait". So the only way this test can fire is when in_interrupt and wait. But if that happens, then the might_sleep_if(wait) at the top should have thrown a warning... It really shouldn't happen. So it looks like it is useless code: there is already protection against recursion in this case. Did I miss something? If I did, maybe more text in the changelog entry (or the comment) would help. Thanks, NeilBrown -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Jens Axboe | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki | Re: 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [BUG #12364] Re: HTB - very bad precision? HFSC works fine! 2.6.28 |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
